Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2265 KP) rated Swan for the Money (Meg Langslow, #11) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
Meg has gotten talked into running the Caerphilly Rose Show, which involves dealing with the eccentric owner of the farm they are using and all her black and white animals, including swans and fainting goats. Oh yeah, and there's a murder, too. Wonderful fun as always.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/05/book-review-swan-for-money-by-donna.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/05/book-review-swan-for-money-by-donna.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2265 KP) rated Owl Be Home for Christmas in Books
Dec 21, 2019
White Christmas? Check! But Will Snow and a Killer Keep Meg from Being Home for Christmas?
It’s a few days before Christmas and Meg Langslow and much of her family are at the Caerphilly Inn for Owl Fest 2019, a conference being put on by Meg’s grandfather. Unfortunately, the worst winter storm in decades has also decided to visit, trapping the attendees in the hotel and possibly keeping them from going home for Christmas. As the snow continues to fall, tempers continue to rise. Owls are not without their controversy, but Dr. Frogmore seems to be at the center of much of the arguments breaking out. No one much likes him, but for some, the problems with him go much deeper. However, when Dr. Frogmore drops dead, Meg’s father suspects that it wasn’t natural causes. Are they trapped at the inn with a killer? Can Meg figure out what is really happening before the snow ends so the conference attendees fly home?
This novel uses a classic mystery trope – everyone trapped someplace with a killer. I’m a little disappointed since it’s been used twice in a row in the series now, and the result was me beginning to feel a bit claustrophobic while I was reading. The mystery itself was solid. It’s obvious early on who the victim will be, and we learn about motives and suspects even before he drops dead. The further complications after the murder takes place kept me guessing until the end. As much as I enjoy spending time with Meg’s family, they aren’t as funny as they used to be. The new characters do provide some laughs, but there are some serious issues in the book that dampen some of the humor. All told, this is still a fun entry to the series that will please Meg’s many fans.
This novel uses a classic mystery trope – everyone trapped someplace with a killer. I’m a little disappointed since it’s been used twice in a row in the series now, and the result was me beginning to feel a bit claustrophobic while I was reading. The mystery itself was solid. It’s obvious early on who the victim will be, and we learn about motives and suspects even before he drops dead. The further complications after the murder takes place kept me guessing until the end. As much as I enjoy spending time with Meg’s family, they aren’t as funny as they used to be. The new characters do provide some laughs, but there are some serious issues in the book that dampen some of the humor. All told, this is still a fun entry to the series that will please Meg’s many fans.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Statham vs Massive Prehistoric Shark
Before I start my review, I think I should add a quick disclaimer. I knew fine well that I wasn’t walking into a Oscar-worthy, perfect film as soon as I booked my ticket for The Meg. With the exception of Jaws, how many shark films have actually been award worthy? We’ve seen a huge boom in shark popularity ranging from plausible to the downright stupid (yes Sharknado, I’m looking at you and your buddies). But despite my already low expectations, I still have a fair amount of criticism for what I saw.
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Mar 9, 2022
Lake Placid has a lot going for it. Great creature effects, snappy pacing, and Betty White being an absolute savage, more so than the giant fuck-off crocodile that is eating everyone.
The whole cast is great actually. Bridget Fonda and Bill Pullman are likable enough leads, even if they're generically molded to specifically fit this kind of film. Oliver Platt and Brendon Gleeson are incredibly entertaining supports and definitely make the movie more fun that it would be otherwise.
The legendary Stan Winston's effects work is top tier, and honestly, the flashes of CGI haven't aged too badly when all is said and done.
Lake Placid is certainly a product of its time, but it's a relic worth remembering. A unabashed, on-the-nose, 90s creature feature that did the double monster fake out before The Meg made it cool, and it's kind of glorious in its own special way.
The whole cast is great actually. Bridget Fonda and Bill Pullman are likable enough leads, even if they're generically molded to specifically fit this kind of film. Oliver Platt and Brendon Gleeson are incredibly entertaining supports and definitely make the movie more fun that it would be otherwise.
The legendary Stan Winston's effects work is top tier, and honestly, the flashes of CGI haven't aged too badly when all is said and done.
Lake Placid is certainly a product of its time, but it's a relic worth remembering. A unabashed, on-the-nose, 90s creature feature that did the double monster fake out before The Meg made it cool, and it's kind of glorious in its own special way.
Juliette Jackson recommended track Jimmy the Exploder by The White Stripes in White Stripes by The White Stripes in Music (curated)
7.3
Album
Favorite
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Girls' Weekend in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Charlotte, Dani, and Meg have been friends for ages-- bonding over motherhood and the issues that accompany it. However, each woman has their own problems and are reluctant to bring them up with their friends. Charlotte, a busy and successful interior designer, has a dentist husband and a loving son, but she feels like her husband, Brett, doesn't even see her anymore. Dani's life appears great -- a caring husband and two kids, but she can't quite shake the empty feelings she has. And Meg is still reeling from losing her young son two years ago; her grief remains, but everyone around her seems to have moved on. When the three women get a chance to go away for a girls' weekend, they jump at the chance, even if involves a little rearranging of schedules. But once there, they make a fateful decision: they aren't coming back home.
When reading it, the premise seems a little farfetched, but the characters in this novel immediately seem very real and the book gives a lot of little details about motherhood that lend it realism (for instance, humming annoying intro music to a children's show at inappropriate times). Each woman is different, but you can relate to a piece of each of them. I found myself liking parts of each and being frustrated with other parts - just like your actual friends.
It's probably true that parts of the book are stereotypical toward men (and fathers) -- painting them as bumbling and clueless toward their wives and children, but sadly, there is some realism to it, too. Plus, as the storyline progresses, you fixate less on this fact and realize there's more to this story than black and white. Honestly, it speaks universally to many women, especially mothers: those seeking answers in life, those feeling guilty for not being happy when life seems perfect on paper, those wondering when life simply became a series of errands. I felt like Achterberg did an excellent job of dealing with and capturing some of the quintessential problems facing the modern mom.
The book is painful to read at times, but only because it's so well-written. Your heart breaks for Meg and all she has been through. The book lags a little in the middle, but really, the women do too, as they try to figure out exactly what they should do. It is fascinating because they are doing what you can't quite imagine pulling off. My mind was racing as I read: I mean, who would really watch your kids for that long? What spouse would be OK with this? Who could leave their kids for that long? And yet, you sort of dream for the time away, envy the women as you read the novel. It's easy to empathize with them, even as you may question some of their motives.
Overall, the book was easy to read and Charlotte, Meg, and Dani were interesting and relatable characters. The book made me think (and highlight many passages). It's a fun read, but also goes deeper, too. Really enjoyed it.
I received an ARC of this book from Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere on 5/3.
When reading it, the premise seems a little farfetched, but the characters in this novel immediately seem very real and the book gives a lot of little details about motherhood that lend it realism (for instance, humming annoying intro music to a children's show at inappropriate times). Each woman is different, but you can relate to a piece of each of them. I found myself liking parts of each and being frustrated with other parts - just like your actual friends.
It's probably true that parts of the book are stereotypical toward men (and fathers) -- painting them as bumbling and clueless toward their wives and children, but sadly, there is some realism to it, too. Plus, as the storyline progresses, you fixate less on this fact and realize there's more to this story than black and white. Honestly, it speaks universally to many women, especially mothers: those seeking answers in life, those feeling guilty for not being happy when life seems perfect on paper, those wondering when life simply became a series of errands. I felt like Achterberg did an excellent job of dealing with and capturing some of the quintessential problems facing the modern mom.
The book is painful to read at times, but only because it's so well-written. Your heart breaks for Meg and all she has been through. The book lags a little in the middle, but really, the women do too, as they try to figure out exactly what they should do. It is fascinating because they are doing what you can't quite imagine pulling off. My mind was racing as I read: I mean, who would really watch your kids for that long? What spouse would be OK with this? Who could leave their kids for that long? And yet, you sort of dream for the time away, envy the women as you read the novel. It's easy to empathize with them, even as you may question some of their motives.
Overall, the book was easy to read and Charlotte, Meg, and Dani were interesting and relatable characters. The book made me think (and highlight many passages). It's a fun read, but also goes deeper, too. Really enjoyed it.
I received an ARC of this book from Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere on 5/3.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)