Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Brotherhood of Olympus and the Deadliest Game (Book 1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog at <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I really, really thought the synopsis of The Brotherhood of Olympus and the Deadliest Game by Guy T. Simpson Jr. sounded very interesting. This was a book that I knew I would have to read. Luckily, I was able to read it, and it was very interesting!
The Fraiser boys lose their favourite uncle in car crash on Friday the thirteenth. After the accident, weird things start happening so the boys consult a spirit board. Is the spirit board helping the boys or is it actually evil? Also, Drake learns through a dream that he is destined to be a king and a leader. Will Drake live long enough to see that day?
I think the author picked a fantastic title for his book!! A lot of people consider a spirit board a game, so I believe this is where the deadliest game bit comes in.
I'm not overly keen on the cover of this book. I mean, it fits the book as it's a photo of the Fraiser boys wither their uncle Wally, but it's just too plain for my liking. However, this could just be a personal thing since I'm a harsh judge of covers.
The world building was done fantastically well!! The setting (1978-1979) was quite believable. I wasn't around at that time, but although there's not really many references about it being the late 70's besides the chapter telling you. I could imagine myself being part of this whole story!
The pacing was really good. Each chapter was full of action and suspense, and I couldn't wait to find out what would happen next. The chapters flow into each other, and not once did I find myself bored whilst reading this story.
For a middle grade read, I'd say that there were some words that might be hard for younger kids to understand, and to be honest, there were some big words I didn't understand. Context clues are important sometimes to figure out what words mean in the story. I did feel that the two younger brothers spoke as if they were much older than eight and ten. There is mild swearing so it's not bad at all when it comes to bad language.
All the characters were well formed and each had their own unique personality which definitely shown through during the story. Martin is the oldest boy, and it's obvious by how much he looks after his younger brothers. Mark is the second oldest, followed by Drake who is the brainy one in the family. Dennis is ten and Albert is 8. As I said in the previous paragraph, the two youngest boys came across as being older then they actually were especially Dennis. However, besides that, they were all believable characters, and I'm sure we all have at least one friend who has one of the boys' personality.
I did feel that the last chapter in the book was a bit repetitive of what the story already told us. I didn't really learn anything I didn't know from the last chapter besides a mention of Wally. However, overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this story as it is very well-written. Oh, and I must say that I really enjoyed enjoy individual drawing at the beginning of each chapter!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 12+.
(I was provided a free ebook copy of this title from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I really, really thought the synopsis of The Brotherhood of Olympus and the Deadliest Game by Guy T. Simpson Jr. sounded very interesting. This was a book that I knew I would have to read. Luckily, I was able to read it, and it was very interesting!
The Fraiser boys lose their favourite uncle in car crash on Friday the thirteenth. After the accident, weird things start happening so the boys consult a spirit board. Is the spirit board helping the boys or is it actually evil? Also, Drake learns through a dream that he is destined to be a king and a leader. Will Drake live long enough to see that day?
I think the author picked a fantastic title for his book!! A lot of people consider a spirit board a game, so I believe this is where the deadliest game bit comes in.
I'm not overly keen on the cover of this book. I mean, it fits the book as it's a photo of the Fraiser boys wither their uncle Wally, but it's just too plain for my liking. However, this could just be a personal thing since I'm a harsh judge of covers.
The world building was done fantastically well!! The setting (1978-1979) was quite believable. I wasn't around at that time, but although there's not really many references about it being the late 70's besides the chapter telling you. I could imagine myself being part of this whole story!
The pacing was really good. Each chapter was full of action and suspense, and I couldn't wait to find out what would happen next. The chapters flow into each other, and not once did I find myself bored whilst reading this story.
For a middle grade read, I'd say that there were some words that might be hard for younger kids to understand, and to be honest, there were some big words I didn't understand. Context clues are important sometimes to figure out what words mean in the story. I did feel that the two younger brothers spoke as if they were much older than eight and ten. There is mild swearing so it's not bad at all when it comes to bad language.
All the characters were well formed and each had their own unique personality which definitely shown through during the story. Martin is the oldest boy, and it's obvious by how much he looks after his younger brothers. Mark is the second oldest, followed by Drake who is the brainy one in the family. Dennis is ten and Albert is 8. As I said in the previous paragraph, the two youngest boys came across as being older then they actually were especially Dennis. However, besides that, they were all believable characters, and I'm sure we all have at least one friend who has one of the boys' personality.
I did feel that the last chapter in the book was a bit repetitive of what the story already told us. I didn't really learn anything I didn't know from the last chapter besides a mention of Wally. However, overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this story as it is very well-written. Oh, and I must say that I really enjoyed enjoy individual drawing at the beginning of each chapter!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 12+.
(I was provided a free ebook copy of this title from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Zodiac in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also find my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/june-29th-2016
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this book in an exchange for a review.
<b><i>"How much worse would the world be if everyone was colour-coded? If people thought they could tell someone's essence at a glance, and discrimination became purely thoughtless? … Maybe people wouldn't spend so much time making sure they acted, sounded and thought the same as their neighbours, if they weren't terrified of being mistaken for the wrong sign. Maybe they'd realise how arbitrary it truly was."</b></i>
This was such a tricky debut novel. The premise was incredibly unique and intriguing that it almost became difficult for the author to live up to the expectations of the plot. Not to say that all debut crime novels are crap but this was such a complex story that I think only really experienced writers like Stephen King or even Gillian Flynn could have shaped it into what it was supposed to be.
I was initially attracted to this book because of the front cover and because the idea of a society where you are segregated by your star sign is a really interesting and unique twist on a look at modern society. Plus I love a crime thriller and had read some good things about this already.
To my disappointment, I felt this started off really slow. I almost couldn’t get into it, but I decided to push myself to continue reading. Only at around 30 - 40% did I finally start to enjoy this. I think a big problem for me was the writing. I often found it a bit clunky and overly descriptive, plus a few spelling and grammar mistakes threw me off. <b>(I hope there's a lot of proofreading before this gets published!)</b>
Though the plot got better, more fast paced and more exciting I still found it difficult to like any of the characters. Burton was a little pretentious and overly insecure. Lindi was as useful as a medium. Mendez was a little bitch. Daniel was mopey and selfish. Cray was your typical dislikable teen gangster. Bram was needy and childish. Maria was supposed to be a kind character but all she did was resent her job and her life. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but I found it difficult to like or relate to any of them.
I felt there was a lot left unsaid when it came to the characters too. Like what happened between Burton and his wife? They were completely fine and loved up one minute and then the next he was saying <i>“he knew she was separating from his life”</i>, but why? Also after the whole Bram <i>thing</i>, he said <i>”Justice was coming for them all”</i> but again, when did that happen in the novel?
Unfortunately I predicted the twist before the 50% mark, I don’t think it was that hard to guess, so that took away some of the excitement of finding out what was going on and getting our killers motive. By the time we find out who our killer is and the Aries people are rising up it all got too confusing for me. There was too much going on in each scene that my mind couldn't focus on any of it!
I’ve given this 3 stars because there was a good story line there and at times some quite nice writing but it was a mediocre book in my mind, not particularly memorable.
On another note, the Ram Squad reminded me of the all the different gangs in Saints Row and the entire Ariesville had a very Gotham vibe to it.
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this book in an exchange for a review.
<b><i>"How much worse would the world be if everyone was colour-coded? If people thought they could tell someone's essence at a glance, and discrimination became purely thoughtless? … Maybe people wouldn't spend so much time making sure they acted, sounded and thought the same as their neighbours, if they weren't terrified of being mistaken for the wrong sign. Maybe they'd realise how arbitrary it truly was."</b></i>
This was such a tricky debut novel. The premise was incredibly unique and intriguing that it almost became difficult for the author to live up to the expectations of the plot. Not to say that all debut crime novels are crap but this was such a complex story that I think only really experienced writers like Stephen King or even Gillian Flynn could have shaped it into what it was supposed to be.
I was initially attracted to this book because of the front cover and because the idea of a society where you are segregated by your star sign is a really interesting and unique twist on a look at modern society. Plus I love a crime thriller and had read some good things about this already.
To my disappointment, I felt this started off really slow. I almost couldn’t get into it, but I decided to push myself to continue reading. Only at around 30 - 40% did I finally start to enjoy this. I think a big problem for me was the writing. I often found it a bit clunky and overly descriptive, plus a few spelling and grammar mistakes threw me off. <b>(I hope there's a lot of proofreading before this gets published!)</b>
Though the plot got better, more fast paced and more exciting I still found it difficult to like any of the characters. Burton was a little pretentious and overly insecure. Lindi was as useful as a medium. Mendez was a little bitch. Daniel was mopey and selfish. Cray was your typical dislikable teen gangster. Bram was needy and childish. Maria was supposed to be a kind character but all she did was resent her job and her life. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but I found it difficult to like or relate to any of them.
I felt there was a lot left unsaid when it came to the characters too. Like what happened between Burton and his wife? They were completely fine and loved up one minute and then the next he was saying <i>“he knew she was separating from his life”</i>, but why? Also after the whole Bram <i>thing</i>, he said <i>”Justice was coming for them all”</i> but again, when did that happen in the novel?
Unfortunately I predicted the twist before the 50% mark, I don’t think it was that hard to guess, so that took away some of the excitement of finding out what was going on and getting our killers motive. By the time we find out who our killer is and the Aries people are rising up it all got too confusing for me. There was too much going on in each scene that my mind couldn't focus on any of it!
I’ve given this 3 stars because there was a good story line there and at times some quite nice writing but it was a mediocre book in my mind, not particularly memorable.
On another note, the Ram Squad reminded me of the all the different gangs in Saints Row and the entire Ariesville had a very Gotham vibe to it.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Action-packed and cracked me up
Thor, the God of Thunder, is about to ascend to his rightful place as King of Asgard and, in the process, will go up against the greatest opposition he has ever faced. While Thor doesn’t quite earn a spot in the upper echelon of Marvel films, it is still quite awesome and pleasing to watch. It’s the fun origin story of how Thor first came to interact with Earthlings.
Acting: 10
Although I cringe when Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off and my wife is in the room, he plays a damn good Thor. Like Robert Downey’s Tony Stark, you can’t help but fall for Hemsworth’s charisma and how he treats the character. There is one particular moment I think he captured exceptionally well: After tearing through a number of dudes like it’s nothing, he’s staring down at his hammer which is stuck in the mud. He has this confident all-knowing smirk on his face as he prepares to lift it…and the hammer doesn’t budge. The absolute heartbreak he experiences after is definitely felt as you wanted him to succeed. There were a number of other solid performances throughout this film, but Hemsworth steals the show.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s hard choosing a favorite Avenger and characters like Thor make it so. He’s got this flared ego about him that should be annoying but it’s somehow both endearing and funny. In one scene, the guy slams a coffee mug down in the middle of a diner because he demands “Another!” cup of the delicious drink. When love interest Jane Foster (Thor) tells him he could have just simply asked for more, he innocently shrugs it off like that was the only way he knew. It’s hilariously believable and one of many scenes that crack you up.
I’ve talked about Thor a lot, but the movie is packed with a number of other characters that make the film spin successfully. I loved Loki’s character arc and his internal struggles. He terribly wants the throne, but there are moments (albeit brief) where you can see him struggling with the things he is doing. Loki and Thor definitely had more depth to their characters than I expected.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
It hasn’t been too long since I watched the movie, but I am already starting to forget some of the things that have happened and it’s honestly blending a bit with the second (which was terrible). A film like Iron Man, in comparison, has stuck with me since the first time I watched it in theaters. Thor didn’t blow me away. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun, however.
Pace: 8
For the most part, the movie is good about keeping you motivated with consistent conflict. When it does slow down in spots, there are some funny parts (like the scene in the diner) that help maintain the entertainment value. Less than a handful of dead spots kept this category out of the perfect realm.
Plot: 10
I had no issues with the story or found any holes. It would be easy for a movie like this to cut corners, but it allowed itself to play out organically. I appreciated the nice touch of character development for the sake of adding depth and impact.
Resolution: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie overall. I hate when movies purposefully leave you hanging for a sequel a la Spider-Man. The best endings are just that: They end the story and provide closure. Missed the mark here.
Overall: 83
There is a really cool part during Thor where the hero and his crew are traveling to Jotunheim, home of the frost giants. I remember having a big grin on my face then which carried me through most of the movie. I won’t call it a classic, but I will say it’s a solid addition in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that should be recognized.
Acting: 10
Although I cringe when Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off and my wife is in the room, he plays a damn good Thor. Like Robert Downey’s Tony Stark, you can’t help but fall for Hemsworth’s charisma and how he treats the character. There is one particular moment I think he captured exceptionally well: After tearing through a number of dudes like it’s nothing, he’s staring down at his hammer which is stuck in the mud. He has this confident all-knowing smirk on his face as he prepares to lift it…and the hammer doesn’t budge. The absolute heartbreak he experiences after is definitely felt as you wanted him to succeed. There were a number of other solid performances throughout this film, but Hemsworth steals the show.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s hard choosing a favorite Avenger and characters like Thor make it so. He’s got this flared ego about him that should be annoying but it’s somehow both endearing and funny. In one scene, the guy slams a coffee mug down in the middle of a diner because he demands “Another!” cup of the delicious drink. When love interest Jane Foster (Thor) tells him he could have just simply asked for more, he innocently shrugs it off like that was the only way he knew. It’s hilariously believable and one of many scenes that crack you up.
I’ve talked about Thor a lot, but the movie is packed with a number of other characters that make the film spin successfully. I loved Loki’s character arc and his internal struggles. He terribly wants the throne, but there are moments (albeit brief) where you can see him struggling with the things he is doing. Loki and Thor definitely had more depth to their characters than I expected.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
It hasn’t been too long since I watched the movie, but I am already starting to forget some of the things that have happened and it’s honestly blending a bit with the second (which was terrible). A film like Iron Man, in comparison, has stuck with me since the first time I watched it in theaters. Thor didn’t blow me away. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun, however.
Pace: 8
For the most part, the movie is good about keeping you motivated with consistent conflict. When it does slow down in spots, there are some funny parts (like the scene in the diner) that help maintain the entertainment value. Less than a handful of dead spots kept this category out of the perfect realm.
Plot: 10
I had no issues with the story or found any holes. It would be easy for a movie like this to cut corners, but it allowed itself to play out organically. I appreciated the nice touch of character development for the sake of adding depth and impact.
Resolution: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie overall. I hate when movies purposefully leave you hanging for a sequel a la Spider-Man. The best endings are just that: They end the story and provide closure. Missed the mark here.
Overall: 83
There is a really cool part during Thor where the hero and his crew are traveling to Jotunheim, home of the frost giants. I remember having a big grin on my face then which carried me through most of the movie. I won’t call it a classic, but I will say it’s a solid addition in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that should be recognized.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Oct 13, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
Top Notch Performances. (1 more)
Effective Scares.
Hard To Watch, Yet Impossible To Turn Away
Contains spoilers, click to show
After being underwhelmed by the major blockbuster release of IT, I didn’t have much hope for this small Netflix movie with a limited cast, a low budget and being an adaption of what is regarded as one of Stephen King’s lesser works. I am happy to report that I was pleasantly surprised when I sat down to watch this one, in fact I’d go as far as to say it blew me away.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Debbiereadsbook (1084 KP) rated Shifter Protection Specialists, Inc Box Set in Books
Jun 28, 2019
different and different is GOOD!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of these books
Kale’s brother drags him to the Shifter Protection Specialists when a deranged fan starts sending threatening male. Kale doesn’t want close protection, but when the mountain of a man walks into the room, Kale knows he would suffer anything to be with this man. Aleski’s sabre tooth tiger takes a shine to Kale, and he quickly realised they could be mates. But the fan is getting closer, and more deadly, and not even Aleski knows if he can keep Kale safe.
I have a soft spot of shifters of a different sort, and you don’t see many (not EVER!) some of the animal halves of these shifters who work together and a sabre tooth tiger is somewhat different and I really rather enjoyed this!
There isn’t that MINE moment, at least not right away, and I loved watching Aleski and Kale fall for each other. Kale calms Aleski’s tiger, stands up to the man where others would run a mile. Oh Aleski would LOVE that Kale ran away, if only for his tiger to play chase with the much smaller model! But Kale isn’t others, and he knows that Aleski is the man and the TIGER for him.
I did not see who the fan might be coming at me, not at all, so well played there!
It’s sexy and sweet, steamy and emotional and I really did enjoy it!
4 solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Protecting his asset
tags: debbie, 4 stars, male/male, romance, shifters, military dudes
I had read this book previously, but when I went back to read my review, I couldn’t pull it up, cos my review really did not give anything away, so I read it again. This is my original review, though.
George knew his father was bad to the bane, he just didn't think he'd go as low as he did. George needs help. The sort of help Scott and his brothers provide. But George has secrets he didn't know he had, and those secrets could kill Scott.
I liked this, a lot! I've not read book one in this series, and I think it would have helped me to. Its just for me, it doesn't affect my star rating or my reading experience. I'll probably go back at some point and read it.
This is told from both Scott and George's POV, so we get to hear from both of them/
It has drama and danger. Some twists I did not see coming. Some interesting shifter types too. Snakes, lizards, phoenix and dragons as well as the usual bears and big cats.
It was an easy read, with just enough information filtered through, all in the right places, to keep you on your toes and interested.
Its the first I've read of this author. I will, as I said, go back and read book one in this series. I should also like to read any future books too. Some hints were made to possible future story lines and I would like to see them through.
4 stars.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Guarding his Mark,
4 stars, male/male, shifters, military dudes, romance, crime/thriller
Khan was subjected to experiments as a child, and as an adult tries to steer clear of hospitals. But when he comes across a sexy man who is testing the use of snake venom on children with cancer, Khan can’t stay away. He needs to make sure that Casey is actually doing what he says he is. He also needs to keep the man safe, cos someone is clearly out to get Casey.
This one is my favourite of the three!
Khan is a King Cobra, and his venom is helping Casey find a cure for his niece. But someone else wants Casey’s research, and not for what Casey intended it for.
Casey and Khan have instant and powerful attraction right from the start, and it burns hot and bright right through the book. It’s super hawt!
I am really enjoying reading about these guys, there are a few of them who have tales to tell, I hope. I can’t find any more than these three though, and I do hope the author hasn’t left them other things!
I almost read all three books in one sitting, but the darn day job got in the way. I would have, though, had it not. I loved these.
Definitely different, and different is ALWAYS good in my book!
4 solid stars across all three books.
Kale’s brother drags him to the Shifter Protection Specialists when a deranged fan starts sending threatening male. Kale doesn’t want close protection, but when the mountain of a man walks into the room, Kale knows he would suffer anything to be with this man. Aleski’s sabre tooth tiger takes a shine to Kale, and he quickly realised they could be mates. But the fan is getting closer, and more deadly, and not even Aleski knows if he can keep Kale safe.
I have a soft spot of shifters of a different sort, and you don’t see many (not EVER!) some of the animal halves of these shifters who work together and a sabre tooth tiger is somewhat different and I really rather enjoyed this!
There isn’t that MINE moment, at least not right away, and I loved watching Aleski and Kale fall for each other. Kale calms Aleski’s tiger, stands up to the man where others would run a mile. Oh Aleski would LOVE that Kale ran away, if only for his tiger to play chase with the much smaller model! But Kale isn’t others, and he knows that Aleski is the man and the TIGER for him.
I did not see who the fan might be coming at me, not at all, so well played there!
It’s sexy and sweet, steamy and emotional and I really did enjoy it!
4 solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Protecting his asset
tags: debbie, 4 stars, male/male, romance, shifters, military dudes
I had read this book previously, but when I went back to read my review, I couldn’t pull it up, cos my review really did not give anything away, so I read it again. This is my original review, though.
George knew his father was bad to the bane, he just didn't think he'd go as low as he did. George needs help. The sort of help Scott and his brothers provide. But George has secrets he didn't know he had, and those secrets could kill Scott.
I liked this, a lot! I've not read book one in this series, and I think it would have helped me to. Its just for me, it doesn't affect my star rating or my reading experience. I'll probably go back at some point and read it.
This is told from both Scott and George's POV, so we get to hear from both of them/
It has drama and danger. Some twists I did not see coming. Some interesting shifter types too. Snakes, lizards, phoenix and dragons as well as the usual bears and big cats.
It was an easy read, with just enough information filtered through, all in the right places, to keep you on your toes and interested.
Its the first I've read of this author. I will, as I said, go back and read book one in this series. I should also like to read any future books too. Some hints were made to possible future story lines and I would like to see them through.
4 stars.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Guarding his Mark,
4 stars, male/male, shifters, military dudes, romance, crime/thriller
Khan was subjected to experiments as a child, and as an adult tries to steer clear of hospitals. But when he comes across a sexy man who is testing the use of snake venom on children with cancer, Khan can’t stay away. He needs to make sure that Casey is actually doing what he says he is. He also needs to keep the man safe, cos someone is clearly out to get Casey.
This one is my favourite of the three!
Khan is a King Cobra, and his venom is helping Casey find a cure for his niece. But someone else wants Casey’s research, and not for what Casey intended it for.
Casey and Khan have instant and powerful attraction right from the start, and it burns hot and bright right through the book. It’s super hawt!
I am really enjoying reading about these guys, there are a few of them who have tales to tell, I hope. I can’t find any more than these three though, and I do hope the author hasn’t left them other things!
I almost read all three books in one sitting, but the darn day job got in the way. I would have, though, had it not. I loved these.
Definitely different, and different is ALWAYS good in my book!
4 solid stars across all three books.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.