Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1437 KP) rated In Safe Keeping (Heroes and Babies #2) in Books
Sep 3, 2019
excellent follow up!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book two in the Heroes and Babies series, but you do NOT need to have read book one, In Safe Hands, before you read this one. There is (or I didn’t pick it up) no relation between the two books, save the Hero and the Baby! But I recommend you do read it, because its bloody brilliant!
Lucas couldn’t save his son, who died in a fire 3 years ago, but saving Owen and baby Mia goes a little way to help. But Owen in clearly running, from what Lucas doesn’t know. His protective instincts are out the roof for Owen and Mia, and Lucas will do anything to keep them safe.
Book one got me out of a bit of a book funk and blew me away, and book two did too!
Lucas’ pain isn’t immediate obvious, and it takes time for the full picture to become clear. I mean, two thirds of the book before you get it ALL laid out for you! And not everything is how you think it’s gonna be! Love being kept on my toes.
The attraction Lucas has for Owen is also slow to become clear, sort of sneaking up on him. While Lucas was married to a woman, he doesn’t question his attraction to Owen, and just runs with it.
Owen’s pain is equally slow in coming out, and it’s not easy reading, not at all. Owen’s attraction to Lucas is powerful, but Owen questions whether that is just the situation, rather than anything real. When they finally get to the “good stuff” though, Owen knows who he wants, he just hopes Lucas feels the same.
Because of the creeping up on Lucas thing, it is not especially explicit, but then again, it doesn’t need to be. It is hot though, it just takes a long time, right till nearly the end of the book!
Again, we get to hear from the bad guy, although said bad guy isn’t quite as bad as one would think, just a man in a really bad place. It is quite graphic, the level of violence that occurs but I think the IS needed, for Owen’s fright to be fully explained, for you to understand what it is he is running from.
Both have guys a say, and you know that makes me happy! I wasn’t sure if Owen would, at first, but he does. Both voices are different, and well written.
I am, currently, listening to book one, and I was hearing Michael Pauley narrate this, so I would hope he does narrate this as well as he does book one!
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book two in the Heroes and Babies series, but you do NOT need to have read book one, In Safe Hands, before you read this one. There is (or I didn’t pick it up) no relation between the two books, save the Hero and the Baby! But I recommend you do read it, because its bloody brilliant!
Lucas couldn’t save his son, who died in a fire 3 years ago, but saving Owen and baby Mia goes a little way to help. But Owen in clearly running, from what Lucas doesn’t know. His protective instincts are out the roof for Owen and Mia, and Lucas will do anything to keep them safe.
Book one got me out of a bit of a book funk and blew me away, and book two did too!
Lucas’ pain isn’t immediate obvious, and it takes time for the full picture to become clear. I mean, two thirds of the book before you get it ALL laid out for you! And not everything is how you think it’s gonna be! Love being kept on my toes.
The attraction Lucas has for Owen is also slow to become clear, sort of sneaking up on him. While Lucas was married to a woman, he doesn’t question his attraction to Owen, and just runs with it.
Owen’s pain is equally slow in coming out, and it’s not easy reading, not at all. Owen’s attraction to Lucas is powerful, but Owen questions whether that is just the situation, rather than anything real. When they finally get to the “good stuff” though, Owen knows who he wants, he just hopes Lucas feels the same.
Because of the creeping up on Lucas thing, it is not especially explicit, but then again, it doesn’t need to be. It is hot though, it just takes a long time, right till nearly the end of the book!
Again, we get to hear from the bad guy, although said bad guy isn’t quite as bad as one would think, just a man in a really bad place. It is quite graphic, the level of violence that occurs but I think the IS needed, for Owen’s fright to be fully explained, for you to understand what it is he is running from.
Both have guys a say, and you know that makes me happy! I wasn’t sure if Owen would, at first, but he does. Both voices are different, and well written.
I am, currently, listening to book one, and I was hearing Michael Pauley narrate this, so I would hope he does narrate this as well as he does book one!
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
A "good enough" ending to the trilogy
Going into the filming of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Director Christopher Nolan had a problem on his hands. The previous film in this trilogy - 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT - had turned into a cultural phenomenon based, in part, on the late Heath Ledger's bravura performance as The Joker. So how does he top it?
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
An absolute snooze
Here comes yet another superhero film. Ending Marvel’s year that has included the charming Big Hero 6, the overstuffed Avengers: Age of Ultron and the surprisingly excellent Ant-Man, the Fox produced Fantastic Four reboot has a tough job trying to get audiences to forget the horror that came before it.
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
Kyera (8 KP) rated Frozen (Heart of Dread, #1) in Books
Feb 1, 2018
The story Frozen, by Melissa de la Cruz and Michael Johnston, is a tale about a girl with powers who lives in a world unlike our own. In post-apocalyptic New Vegas, Nat fins the one object that might allow her to escape the frozen landscape. The map to help her find the Blue, a promised land untainted by the cold and destruction her world knows. A place that maybe she can live a good life and not spend each day fearful that she will be discovered.
For an established YA writer, this book is surprisingly wrought with errors and would make an English major cringe. It was a poorly written novel with a multitude of punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors. Those completely detracted from the book and made it difficult to read the novel fluidly. There was an overuse of commas, "For days upon days she had been left in the room, alone, in total silence, with little food and water, the weight of solitude becoming ever more oppressive, the silence a heaviness that she could not shake, punishment for refusing to do as she was told, punishment for being what she was." I ran out of breath just reading that incredibly long, run on sentence. It also illustrates another example, the banal repetitiveness. Some examples would be, "She walked down the road, the road that was smooth." Or "The fire that raged within her. The fire that destroyed and consumed. The fire that would destroy and consume her..." How many times does one need to write the fire? Many of the sentences are just reworded versions of the one that came before it. Unnecessarily repetitive and it makes the book sound like a novice writer threw it together in a slap-dash manner with no editor to speak of.
It also cannot decide what genre it wishes to fall under. The magical elements and new species lend itself to a label of fantasy, like books about faeries or nymphs. Paranormal romance perhaps, for the love story that blossoms over the course of the novel? Or the more recently popular zombie novels, with their diseases and alterations of the human dNA, like Forest of Teeth and Bones? Perhaps its a post-apocalyptic or dystopian style novel, akin to Divergent or the Hunger Games - with its frozen world, scarce resources, and tyrannical governments. Whatever it is, the fact that it cannot decide makes the book quite confusing. It does not flow well as a result of the colliding and conflicting worlds. There also is no world-building, which is incredibly important to me in a book. And character building, or even character personalities? Almost non-existent. I would recommend this book to young teen readers, but not anyone who finds themselves frequently noticing errors in novels (even minor ones)as this will drive you crazy. I almost didn't finish the first chapter because the book was so poorly written, but I wanted to see if it would improve.
For an established YA writer, this book is surprisingly wrought with errors and would make an English major cringe. It was a poorly written novel with a multitude of punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors. Those completely detracted from the book and made it difficult to read the novel fluidly. There was an overuse of commas, "For days upon days she had been left in the room, alone, in total silence, with little food and water, the weight of solitude becoming ever more oppressive, the silence a heaviness that she could not shake, punishment for refusing to do as she was told, punishment for being what she was." I ran out of breath just reading that incredibly long, run on sentence. It also illustrates another example, the banal repetitiveness. Some examples would be, "She walked down the road, the road that was smooth." Or "The fire that raged within her. The fire that destroyed and consumed. The fire that would destroy and consume her..." How many times does one need to write the fire? Many of the sentences are just reworded versions of the one that came before it. Unnecessarily repetitive and it makes the book sound like a novice writer threw it together in a slap-dash manner with no editor to speak of.
It also cannot decide what genre it wishes to fall under. The magical elements and new species lend itself to a label of fantasy, like books about faeries or nymphs. Paranormal romance perhaps, for the love story that blossoms over the course of the novel? Or the more recently popular zombie novels, with their diseases and alterations of the human dNA, like Forest of Teeth and Bones? Perhaps its a post-apocalyptic or dystopian style novel, akin to Divergent or the Hunger Games - with its frozen world, scarce resources, and tyrannical governments. Whatever it is, the fact that it cannot decide makes the book quite confusing. It does not flow well as a result of the colliding and conflicting worlds. There also is no world-building, which is incredibly important to me in a book. And character building, or even character personalities? Almost non-existent. I would recommend this book to young teen readers, but not anyone who finds themselves frequently noticing errors in novels (even minor ones)as this will drive you crazy. I almost didn't finish the first chapter because the book was so poorly written, but I wanted to see if it would improve.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989) in Movies
Jan 29, 2019
Intriguing Movie
A woman begins a torrid romance of infidelity and tries to keep it from her nefarious husband.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Operation Finale (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Fifteen years after the end of World War II there are still high ranking Nazi officials who have not been brought to justice. One of the biggest names to yet be captured is Adolph Eichmann (Ben Kingsley), the so called Architect of the Final Solution. Then in May 1960 someone in Argentina tips off the Israeli government that Eichmann may be hiding out in near Buenos Ares, Argentina. When the leader of an Israeli special unit finds out he sends an agent, Zvi Aharoni (Michael Aronov), to confirm the identity of the war criminal. When they determine that this has to be their man, a unit of operatives led by Peter Malkin (Oscar Isaac) set out to bring Eichmann to justice. In the past the unit has been able to deliver swift justice and in most cases there was no trial. But for a man that brought so much pain to so many Jewish people they must bring him to justice in the newly established state of Israel for all the world to see. Unfortunately the Argentine government would object to such an operation on its soil. So risky and daring plan for Peter to grab Eichmann near his home and get him to a safe house nearby. The would then have disguise him and Doctor Hanna Elian (Melanie Laurent) would have to keep him drugged all the way to the airport and on to awaiting plane out of the country. All of this will dodging Nazi sympathizers both in the police and roaming the streets. But for the 6 million of their people who died at the hands of men like Eichmann they must try.
This is the incredible true story of the capture of one of the top Nazi officials. The story is set up well by Director Chris Weitz (About a Boy, The Golden Compass). Ben Kingsley and Oscar Isaac give outstanding performances. Kingsley’s character and how his story develops is interesting. The entire supporting cast does well and Nick Kroll (Sing, The House) brings a surprising bit of fun to a heavy story line. Some may say the bits of humor might be a little odd given the subject matter but I thought it brought a realness and humanity to the film. The balance between the humor and showing the horror of World War II was really well done. At a little over two hours it does run a little long and there are flashback scenes that are at inconsistent times.
I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Not having heard this story before I enjoyed how this film was laid out for the audience. It definitely made me want to learn more about this unique true story. I think this is a film that shows the importance of people fighting to bring truth and justice to the world regardless of the odds.
This is the incredible true story of the capture of one of the top Nazi officials. The story is set up well by Director Chris Weitz (About a Boy, The Golden Compass). Ben Kingsley and Oscar Isaac give outstanding performances. Kingsley’s character and how his story develops is interesting. The entire supporting cast does well and Nick Kroll (Sing, The House) brings a surprising bit of fun to a heavy story line. Some may say the bits of humor might be a little odd given the subject matter but I thought it brought a realness and humanity to the film. The balance between the humor and showing the horror of World War II was really well done. At a little over two hours it does run a little long and there are flashback scenes that are at inconsistent times.
I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Not having heard this story before I enjoyed how this film was laid out for the audience. It definitely made me want to learn more about this unique true story. I think this is a film that shows the importance of people fighting to bring truth and justice to the world regardless of the odds.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The movie The Revenant is a new release starring Leonardo DiCaprio
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
This Phoenix Failed To Rise From It's Ashes
Dark Phoenix is a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics X-Men and the Dark Phoenix Saga story arc. It was produced by 20th Century Fox and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie was written and directed by Simon Kinberg. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Sophie Turner.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stowaway (2021) in Movies
Apr 30, 2021
Good physics but otherwise bland and forgettable
In "Stowaway", three astronauts - Commander Marina Bartlett (Toni Collette), doctor and scientist Zoe Levensen (Anna Kendrick) and scientist David Kim (Daniel Dae Kim) - have left earth on a mission to Mars. Bartlett is a bit surprised when she removes an overhead panel and technician Michael Adams (Shamier Anderson) falls out on her, injuring her arm.
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
