Search
Search results
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Appetite in Books
Sep 24, 2020
The main characters in this book were David, Naomi and Matthew, and the whole story was told from their perspectives. Even though this book was told from these three characters views, there were plenty of other, smaller, but very influential characters as well, which should not be forgotten, because I think they shaped the main characters in this novel. I am talking about David’s mom Kerri, Matthew’s girlfriend Polly and Naomi’s guilty pleasure, Mike. I loved that Anita created this very strong emotional bond between all the characters, I think that allowed to understand the main storytellers and the reasons for their actions way better.
My favourite one in this novel was David. I found his feelings and his experience highly amusing and sometimes shocking, but I was looking forward to his parts in this book. My least favourite one was Naomi. I simply cannot justify her behaviour in any way, and I personally do not respect people like her. (I could rant about her for a very long time, but I will try not to, even though she makes my blood boil.)
One thing that really stands out while reading this novel was passion. I could feel author’s passion about the topics she discussed, seeping through the pages of this book. I think it is very well researched novel, sharing plenty of facts with a reader. I am very grateful that author talks about really important topics, such as bullying, obesity, how parents influence children’s eating habits, and how sugar is taking over our society. Even though this topic has been analyzed in many books, I think that author chose a fresh and original way to highlight these issues.
I really liked the writing style of this book, I think it has a very good focus on detail, and it actually left me more connected to this book. (It is hard to describe the feeling…) The chapters are decent length, and overall it didn’t leave me bored, except for Naomi’s part, they kind of dragged for me. The ending of this book rounded the story nicely and left me quite satisfied. I would like to throw in a disclaimer, that there are some graphic sexual scenes in this book. So to conclude, I had very educational experience, filled with very complex characters and their different needs, feelings and emotions. I do recommend this book, I think it is quite relatable, very realistic and thought-provoking.
My favourite one in this novel was David. I found his feelings and his experience highly amusing and sometimes shocking, but I was looking forward to his parts in this book. My least favourite one was Naomi. I simply cannot justify her behaviour in any way, and I personally do not respect people like her. (I could rant about her for a very long time, but I will try not to, even though she makes my blood boil.)
One thing that really stands out while reading this novel was passion. I could feel author’s passion about the topics she discussed, seeping through the pages of this book. I think it is very well researched novel, sharing plenty of facts with a reader. I am very grateful that author talks about really important topics, such as bullying, obesity, how parents influence children’s eating habits, and how sugar is taking over our society. Even though this topic has been analyzed in many books, I think that author chose a fresh and original way to highlight these issues.
I really liked the writing style of this book, I think it has a very good focus on detail, and it actually left me more connected to this book. (It is hard to describe the feeling…) The chapters are decent length, and overall it didn’t leave me bored, except for Naomi’s part, they kind of dragged for me. The ending of this book rounded the story nicely and left me quite satisfied. I would like to throw in a disclaimer, that there are some graphic sexual scenes in this book. So to conclude, I had very educational experience, filled with very complex characters and their different needs, feelings and emotions. I do recommend this book, I think it is quite relatable, very realistic and thought-provoking.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Sep 27, 2017
C is for Candy
Contains spoilers, click to show
And yes, I certainly mean eye candy. Johnny Depp is gorgeous despite the makeup artists’ attempts to make him seem pale and awkward. My brain isn’t working properly due to lack of sleep so I’ll just go ahead and warn you that this is more a regurgitation than a review. Read at your own risk, because I even give the entire ending of the movie away…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Graduate (1967) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
Career Defining Turn by Bancroft
On the surface, THE GRADUATE is a story of a young college graduate who has an affair with an older woman. But look beneath the surface and this film becomes much, much more.
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
Bloated, messy at times, not quite as good as chapter 1 :(
It's fair to say that IT Chapter 2 has been one of my most anticipated movies this year. The trailer, which I've probably watched just as many times now as I watched the Endgame trailer, gives me goosebumps every time, and I couldn't wait to rejoin the losers club for another battle with Pennywise the clown. I was lucky enough to secure tickets to the immersive IT experience in London last weekend, adding further fuel to my excitement, and I decided to book the double bill showing of both chapters at the cinema in order to fully enjoy the complete story. Watching chapter 1 up on the big screen again proved to be just as enjoyable for me as the first time I saw it. Sadly though, I feel that chapter 2 didn't quite measure up to chapter 1.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Unusual Suspects: Stories of Mystery & Fantasy in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Another uneven anthology. I still have it in my hands, so I'll try to hit each story briefly.
"Lucky" by Charlaine Harris - Sookie is much easier to take in short form. I can't help it, the woman grates on me (in the TV show even worse than in the books). The other characters keep me reading.
"Bogieman" by Carole Nelson Douglas - Delilah Street does more than grate on my nerves in long form. She's more palatable in short form, too, but there are reminders of why I don't intend to read more in that series.
"Looks are Deceiving" by Michael A. Stackpole - If I've read any of Stackpole's work before, it's been in anthologies, and I don't remember it. I did wonder if this short story is set in a universe he uses in longer works, though. It wasn't bad at all.
"The House of Seven Spirits" by Sharon Shinn - I loved this story! And how often do you say that about a haunted house tale? I must track down and read some of Shinn's novels. Any suggestions?
"Glamour" by Mike Doogan - The Peasantry Anti-Defamation League might be after Doogan if he isn't careful (at least, representatives of the male peasantry). The story was cute, and it did make me laugh.
"Spellbound" by Donna Andrews - This is another author whose books are going on my (groaning) to-read shelf. The story hit a few clichés, but was fun enough to get away with them.
"The Duh Vice" by Michael Armstrong - Ugh. A little too preachy, and way too much anti-fat prejudice.
"Weight of the World" by John Straley - Where does Santa Claus go in the off-season? That's the biggest question answered in this piece. The "mystery" was "solved" nearly as soon as it was discovered.
"Illumination" by Laura Anne Gilman - Bonnie's back story! I think a bit of this story is used in the first chapter of Gilman's first PUPI novel, but I'll know more when I get my hands on it. It's a must-read for fans of the Cosa Nostradamus universe, though.
"The House" by Laurie R. King - could we maybe call a hiatus on the abused-kid stories? Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but I'm tired of them.
"Appetite for Murder" by Simon R. Green - another dark Nightside story. I don't think I'll ever need to read more in that universe.
"A Woman's Work" by Dana Stabenow - I'm an unabashed Stabenow fangirl. Despite that, I wasn't sure how she'd do in a fantasy setting. She proved herself, certainly. I can only hope that we'll see longer fantasy works from her in print at some juncture.
"Lucky" by Charlaine Harris - Sookie is much easier to take in short form. I can't help it, the woman grates on me (in the TV show even worse than in the books). The other characters keep me reading.
"Bogieman" by Carole Nelson Douglas - Delilah Street does more than grate on my nerves in long form. She's more palatable in short form, too, but there are reminders of why I don't intend to read more in that series.
"Looks are Deceiving" by Michael A. Stackpole - If I've read any of Stackpole's work before, it's been in anthologies, and I don't remember it. I did wonder if this short story is set in a universe he uses in longer works, though. It wasn't bad at all.
"The House of Seven Spirits" by Sharon Shinn - I loved this story! And how often do you say that about a haunted house tale? I must track down and read some of Shinn's novels. Any suggestions?
"Glamour" by Mike Doogan - The Peasantry Anti-Defamation League might be after Doogan if he isn't careful (at least, representatives of the male peasantry). The story was cute, and it did make me laugh.
"Spellbound" by Donna Andrews - This is another author whose books are going on my (groaning) to-read shelf. The story hit a few clichés, but was fun enough to get away with them.
"The Duh Vice" by Michael Armstrong - Ugh. A little too preachy, and way too much anti-fat prejudice.
"Weight of the World" by John Straley - Where does Santa Claus go in the off-season? That's the biggest question answered in this piece. The "mystery" was "solved" nearly as soon as it was discovered.
"Illumination" by Laura Anne Gilman - Bonnie's back story! I think a bit of this story is used in the first chapter of Gilman's first PUPI novel, but I'll know more when I get my hands on it. It's a must-read for fans of the Cosa Nostradamus universe, though.
"The House" by Laurie R. King - could we maybe call a hiatus on the abused-kid stories? Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but I'm tired of them.
"Appetite for Murder" by Simon R. Green - another dark Nightside story. I don't think I'll ever need to read more in that universe.
"A Woman's Work" by Dana Stabenow - I'm an unabashed Stabenow fangirl. Despite that, I wasn't sure how she'd do in a fantasy setting. She proved herself, certainly. I can only hope that we'll see longer fantasy works from her in print at some juncture.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 18, 2020
Entertaining "shoot-em-up" with 2 charismatic leads
Okay - I gotta admit, I never saw the first two BAD BOYS films starring Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, but I pretty much got the gist of it through the advertisements, so when these 2 re-united for a 3rd film (set 17 years after BAD BOYS II), I figured I would skip this one as well. But...as life would have it...I ended up attending this film - with a giant attitude of "this is gonna stink" to accompany me.
And...I was wrong. I was really, really entertained by this film.
BAD BOYS FOR LIFE presents Martin Lawrence's Det. Marcus Burnett and Will Smith's Det. Mike Lowry still "in the game". One wants to keep working and the other is looking to retire (if you take a look at the picture, you can figure out which one is which). The two battle like an old married couple while taking on some crooks in "shoot 'em up" action scenes.
And...what's not to like about that? Smith and Lawrence still have strong chemistry on the screen and the action scenes - staged by new (to me) Directors Adil and Bilall - keep things moving at a quick enough pace, not too fast that you get a headache, but not too slow that you start punching a hole in the plot.
And...as is typical of these types of films...the plot is paper thin and just is a reason to have these 2 banter and to have shoot-em-up scenes.
But that doesn't matter.
Ably helping the boys out is their put-upon Captain (the always watchable Joe Pantaliano reprising his role from the previous 2 films) and the members of the "AMMO SQUAD". These are young cops who are set up to replace our 2 heroes. Normally, this band of youngsters would be arrogant a-holes who end up being too cocky and are outwitted by our heroes, but this film puts that convention on it's ear and the "Ammo Squad" are actually a pretty good addition to this film series.
The filmmakers left the door wide open for BAD BOYS 4 and...I can't believe I'm saying this...I'm actually looking forward to it! Certainly not an Oscar contender, but an entertaining "blow-em-up" with 2 charismatic leads that play off each other well. Everyone involved knew exactly what type of film they were making - so they made that movie, with no apologies.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I was wrong. I was really, really entertained by this film.
BAD BOYS FOR LIFE presents Martin Lawrence's Det. Marcus Burnett and Will Smith's Det. Mike Lowry still "in the game". One wants to keep working and the other is looking to retire (if you take a look at the picture, you can figure out which one is which). The two battle like an old married couple while taking on some crooks in "shoot 'em up" action scenes.
And...what's not to like about that? Smith and Lawrence still have strong chemistry on the screen and the action scenes - staged by new (to me) Directors Adil and Bilall - keep things moving at a quick enough pace, not too fast that you get a headache, but not too slow that you start punching a hole in the plot.
And...as is typical of these types of films...the plot is paper thin and just is a reason to have these 2 banter and to have shoot-em-up scenes.
But that doesn't matter.
Ably helping the boys out is their put-upon Captain (the always watchable Joe Pantaliano reprising his role from the previous 2 films) and the members of the "AMMO SQUAD". These are young cops who are set up to replace our 2 heroes. Normally, this band of youngsters would be arrogant a-holes who end up being too cocky and are outwitted by our heroes, but this film puts that convention on it's ear and the "Ammo Squad" are actually a pretty good addition to this film series.
The filmmakers left the door wide open for BAD BOYS 4 and...I can't believe I'm saying this...I'm actually looking forward to it! Certainly not an Oscar contender, but an entertaining "blow-em-up" with 2 charismatic leads that play off each other well. Everyone involved knew exactly what type of film they were making - so they made that movie, with no apologies.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bad Moms (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019 (Updated Aug 6, 2019)
When moms get tired of being perfect, not being appreciated and decide to give their spoiled children a lesson and just enjoy every minute of their day instead – that’s when the movie Bad Moms happens.
Amy Mitchell (Mila Kunis) is a 32-year-old modern mom, who has a seemingly perfect life: a great marriage, over-achieving kids, a beautiful home and a career. However, she is over-worked and so exhausted that she’s reached the point where she is about to snap. Her life has been reduced to spending a lot of time driving her kids to their extracurricular activities and trying to be just in time for everything. Her perfect life is just a smoke screen, her husband Mike (David Walton) has been unemployed for a while, doesn’t care about helping with anything house- or kids-related, and enjoys a little bit too much online entertainment. In addition to being spoiled, her daughter Jane (Oona Laurence) has some anxiety issues and her son Dylan (Emjay Anthony) has never done his own homework. To make it even more interesting, Amy has to deal with the judgement of PTA Queen, Bee Gwendolyn, (Christina Applegate) and her minions Stacy (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Vicky (Annie Mumolo).
After one hectic day, all Amy can do is stop at a bar and grab a glass of whiskey. There she meets two other underappreciated moms, Kiki (Kristen Bell) and Carla (Kathryn Hahn). Over drinks they vent and declare that they’re tired of living up to expectations and not being appreciated for all their hard work. So they decide to be bad moms.
I love seeing Christina Applegate as the villain; she is smart, evil and pulls all the strings, driving everyone to the edge but nobody can say anything because they’re terrified of her. But the one that dominates the comedy is Kathryn Hann. You would think you might be tired of seeing her in just about every movie released in the last 10 years, but oh boy is this woman hilarious! She plays the divorced working mother whose every line, good or bad, makes the audience ask again and again “Did she just say that?”
I really enjoyed this movie. It is the perfect summer comedy that all audiences can enjoy, especially moms who can really relate. This is The Hangover for moms. I assure you will laugh nonstop because it has a wild drunk trip to the grocery store, a memorable show-and-tell demonstration and a really funny lecture about unflattering bras. I promise you will leave the theater with a smile.
Amy Mitchell (Mila Kunis) is a 32-year-old modern mom, who has a seemingly perfect life: a great marriage, over-achieving kids, a beautiful home and a career. However, she is over-worked and so exhausted that she’s reached the point where she is about to snap. Her life has been reduced to spending a lot of time driving her kids to their extracurricular activities and trying to be just in time for everything. Her perfect life is just a smoke screen, her husband Mike (David Walton) has been unemployed for a while, doesn’t care about helping with anything house- or kids-related, and enjoys a little bit too much online entertainment. In addition to being spoiled, her daughter Jane (Oona Laurence) has some anxiety issues and her son Dylan (Emjay Anthony) has never done his own homework. To make it even more interesting, Amy has to deal with the judgement of PTA Queen, Bee Gwendolyn, (Christina Applegate) and her minions Stacy (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Vicky (Annie Mumolo).
After one hectic day, all Amy can do is stop at a bar and grab a glass of whiskey. There she meets two other underappreciated moms, Kiki (Kristen Bell) and Carla (Kathryn Hahn). Over drinks they vent and declare that they’re tired of living up to expectations and not being appreciated for all their hard work. So they decide to be bad moms.
I love seeing Christina Applegate as the villain; she is smart, evil and pulls all the strings, driving everyone to the edge but nobody can say anything because they’re terrified of her. But the one that dominates the comedy is Kathryn Hann. You would think you might be tired of seeing her in just about every movie released in the last 10 years, but oh boy is this woman hilarious! She plays the divorced working mother whose every line, good or bad, makes the audience ask again and again “Did she just say that?”
I really enjoyed this movie. It is the perfect summer comedy that all audiences can enjoy, especially moms who can really relate. This is The Hangover for moms. I assure you will laugh nonstop because it has a wild drunk trip to the grocery store, a memorable show-and-tell demonstration and a really funny lecture about unflattering bras. I promise you will leave the theater with a smile.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Alvin and the Chipmunks are back in an all new adventure along with Dave and the Chipettes. Directed by Mike Mitchell, this is the third installment in the new Chipmunk franchise. The voices of the Chipmunks and Chipettes include none other than Justin Long (Alvin), Matthew Gray Gubler (Simon), Jesse McCartney (Theodore), Amy Poehler (Eleanor), Anna Faris (Jeanette), Christina Applegate (Brittany), Alan Tudyk (Simone), David Cross (Ian ) and of course we can’t forget Jason Lee (Dave) . This installment, like the other two, are jam-packed with great actors and comedians who together have made an entertaining film not only for children but for adults as well.
The Chipmunks and the Chipettes are on their way to performing at the International Music Awards and are taking a small vacation before their big show to relax. At least that is what the plan was, until good ol’ Alvin, who always has to be the risk taker, changes the plans. Because of his crazy antics he ends up causing himself, his brothers, the Chipettes, Dave and the ships pelican mascot to go over board and get subsequently marooned on a deserted island. Dave and the pelican mascot end up on a different part of the island than the Chipmunks and Chipettes and both groups think they are doomed and will never be found. As luck would have it, they meet Zoe (Jenne Slate). Zoe has been on the island for quite a few years after being marooned herself and has made it her home. When the island is in trouble when a sleeping volcano begins to wake up; it is up to everybody to get over their inhibitions and help each other get to safety. Along the way everybody learns some life lessons but will Dave ever get to see the Chipmunks again and make it to the music awards?
The plot of this film is very simple and a bit short, but you have to remember that it is geared mainly to children. I still enjoy the Chipmunks and it is such a treat after having grown up watching the cartoons and seeing what modern filmmaking offers a new generation of kids. Most adults may not like the new songs and may find it annoying. I on the other hand love it, with some of the songs being performed better by chipmunks than the actual artists. This movie is recommended for families and the young at heart for a great afternoon movie. Although the first two movies in the franchise are my favorite, this installment is entertaining and will for sure put a smile on your face.
The Chipmunks and the Chipettes are on their way to performing at the International Music Awards and are taking a small vacation before their big show to relax. At least that is what the plan was, until good ol’ Alvin, who always has to be the risk taker, changes the plans. Because of his crazy antics he ends up causing himself, his brothers, the Chipettes, Dave and the ships pelican mascot to go over board and get subsequently marooned on a deserted island. Dave and the pelican mascot end up on a different part of the island than the Chipmunks and Chipettes and both groups think they are doomed and will never be found. As luck would have it, they meet Zoe (Jenne Slate). Zoe has been on the island for quite a few years after being marooned herself and has made it her home. When the island is in trouble when a sleeping volcano begins to wake up; it is up to everybody to get over their inhibitions and help each other get to safety. Along the way everybody learns some life lessons but will Dave ever get to see the Chipmunks again and make it to the music awards?
The plot of this film is very simple and a bit short, but you have to remember that it is geared mainly to children. I still enjoy the Chipmunks and it is such a treat after having grown up watching the cartoons and seeing what modern filmmaking offers a new generation of kids. Most adults may not like the new songs and may find it annoying. I on the other hand love it, with some of the songs being performed better by chipmunks than the actual artists. This movie is recommended for families and the young at heart for a great afternoon movie. Although the first two movies in the franchise are my favorite, this installment is entertaining and will for sure put a smile on your face.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
My anticipation for the second part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, much like my anticipation of Part 1, was accompanied by great reluctance to witness the culmination of 10 years of storytelling.
Opening exactly where Part 1 left off, we find Harry, Hermione and Ron continuing on their quest to locate the remaining Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has implanted a part of his soul. Destruction of these Horcruxes help weaken Voldemort. Polyjuice, goblins and a dragon ride provide some humor and thrills and eventually leads to the trios’ return to Hogwarts, where Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is now the hated headmaster. Voldemort has attained the powerful Elder Wand and has turned his evil sights on the school in hopes of drawing Harry out. Along with his questionably loyal Deatheaters, they surround Hogwarts and prepare to attack.
At times the storytelling is a bit slow, at times too abrupt. While the special Harry Potter 3D glasses were amusing, I didn’t notice any spectacular effects that would warrant the extra charge to watch this movie in 3D. As is the case for converted 3D movies, the effects are more of a distracting afterthought than a real enhancement. For those not familiar with the books, the storylines may be a bit convoluted but your patience will be rewarded. Daniel Radcliffe’s matured Harry Potter is grim and resolute, his best friends Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch) are aptly desperate but determined. Taking a stand with them, wile making their cinematic curtain call, are many of their Hogwarts professors, their classmates in Dumbldore’s Army and their mentors in the Order of the Phoenix. There are more heartwrenching moments than heartwarming parts as Harry learns more about the events surrounding his existence and what he must do to defeat Voldemort.
Few books, and far fewer movie adaptations, have captured the hearts of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. The valiant attempts by directors Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and, lastly, David Yates, to recreate the vast, enchanting wizarding world imagined by J.K. Rowling, have deservedly garnered the franchise a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Yet, as lush and vivid as the movies have been, they only touched on some of the best parts of the books. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting perfection. But what I saw in Part 2 was pretty darn close. While movie adaptations of beloved stories will always leave serious fans wanting more, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a fitting finale to this epic tale.
Opening exactly where Part 1 left off, we find Harry, Hermione and Ron continuing on their quest to locate the remaining Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has implanted a part of his soul. Destruction of these Horcruxes help weaken Voldemort. Polyjuice, goblins and a dragon ride provide some humor and thrills and eventually leads to the trios’ return to Hogwarts, where Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is now the hated headmaster. Voldemort has attained the powerful Elder Wand and has turned his evil sights on the school in hopes of drawing Harry out. Along with his questionably loyal Deatheaters, they surround Hogwarts and prepare to attack.
At times the storytelling is a bit slow, at times too abrupt. While the special Harry Potter 3D glasses were amusing, I didn’t notice any spectacular effects that would warrant the extra charge to watch this movie in 3D. As is the case for converted 3D movies, the effects are more of a distracting afterthought than a real enhancement. For those not familiar with the books, the storylines may be a bit convoluted but your patience will be rewarded. Daniel Radcliffe’s matured Harry Potter is grim and resolute, his best friends Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch) are aptly desperate but determined. Taking a stand with them, wile making their cinematic curtain call, are many of their Hogwarts professors, their classmates in Dumbldore’s Army and their mentors in the Order of the Phoenix. There are more heartwrenching moments than heartwarming parts as Harry learns more about the events surrounding his existence and what he must do to defeat Voldemort.
Few books, and far fewer movie adaptations, have captured the hearts of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. The valiant attempts by directors Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and, lastly, David Yates, to recreate the vast, enchanting wizarding world imagined by J.K. Rowling, have deservedly garnered the franchise a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Yet, as lush and vivid as the movies have been, they only touched on some of the best parts of the books. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting perfection. But what I saw in Part 2 was pretty darn close. While movie adaptations of beloved stories will always leave serious fans wanting more, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a fitting finale to this epic tale.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Jul 4, 2020
Honestly, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to recite what actually happens either Olympus Has Fallen or London Has Fallen, then I'd be shit out of luck. The recent third entry Angel Has Fallen will be no different in a week or two...
It's not awful (some of the action is fairly entertaining) but it's so by the numbers and boring. Jesus Christ, even Nick Nolte doing his by-now-expected-crazy-old-guy schtick is tiresome after roughly 5 seconds.
The plot revolves around Gerard Butler's Mike Banning, who is high up in the White Houses security detail, being framed for an assassination attempt on the President (Morgan Freeman). He is then chased down by the FBI, whilst he tries to figure out who is actually behind it, take them down, and clear his name.
I don't even need to spoil who the bad guys are because it's painfully obvious from the precise second we meet them.
I don't mind Gerard Butler by any means, but he seems to be phoning it in at this point, as he goes through the motions and runs through a gauntlet of action movie cliches - including but not limited to:
- a dramatic dimly lit and gun heavy opening scene that is blatantly a training excercise
- the hero throwing down an effective weapon to face of with the villain in hand to hand
- the hero walking away from an important family conversation at a pivotal moment to go and do hero stuff
- Danny Huston playing a smug arsehole
- A political sub plot involving Russia that doesn't actually go anywhere
Etc, etc.
I, like most people, love a good bit of Morgan Freeman, but unfortunately, they did a Leia on him and just had him in a coma for most of the film, yaaaaay. Jada Pinkett-Smith is in here somewhere as well, but I can't even remember what happens to her.
Just to top it all off, some of the effects work in this is terrible by any standard, but considering it's a big budget action film, it's pretty embarrassing.
I mean, I can be a miserable bastard sometimes, and I appreciate that maybe I'm railing too hard on a film that should just be a dumb popcorn film, but honestly, Angel Has Fallen feels like the result of someone forcing a bot to sit through the first two, and then produce a script for a sequel.
It's not awful (some of the action is fairly entertaining) but it's so by the numbers and boring. Jesus Christ, even Nick Nolte doing his by-now-expected-crazy-old-guy schtick is tiresome after roughly 5 seconds.
The plot revolves around Gerard Butler's Mike Banning, who is high up in the White Houses security detail, being framed for an assassination attempt on the President (Morgan Freeman). He is then chased down by the FBI, whilst he tries to figure out who is actually behind it, take them down, and clear his name.
I don't even need to spoil who the bad guys are because it's painfully obvious from the precise second we meet them.
I don't mind Gerard Butler by any means, but he seems to be phoning it in at this point, as he goes through the motions and runs through a gauntlet of action movie cliches - including but not limited to:
- a dramatic dimly lit and gun heavy opening scene that is blatantly a training excercise
- the hero throwing down an effective weapon to face of with the villain in hand to hand
- the hero walking away from an important family conversation at a pivotal moment to go and do hero stuff
- Danny Huston playing a smug arsehole
- A political sub plot involving Russia that doesn't actually go anywhere
Etc, etc.
I, like most people, love a good bit of Morgan Freeman, but unfortunately, they did a Leia on him and just had him in a coma for most of the film, yaaaaay. Jada Pinkett-Smith is in here somewhere as well, but I can't even remember what happens to her.
Just to top it all off, some of the effects work in this is terrible by any standard, but considering it's a big budget action film, it's pretty embarrassing.
I mean, I can be a miserable bastard sometimes, and I appreciate that maybe I'm railing too hard on a film that should just be a dumb popcorn film, but honestly, Angel Has Fallen feels like the result of someone forcing a bot to sit through the first two, and then produce a script for a sequel.