Search
Search results
<i>Mean Streets</i> is one of the best anthologies I've read in a while. It only has four different pieces in it, but they're all novellas, and all by strong, experienced writers. I don't think any of them are here riding on someone else's name on the book cover.
Jim Butcher's "Warrior," the first piece, is very good. It follows Harry and the Carpenter family after they experienced some major changes in the last Dresden novel. I could have stood a little more Molly, but Harry and Michael were the focus characters and they worked out some things that really needed to be dealt with. I'm glad I read this before the next Dresden novel, because I feel there's important character development. I seriously recommend this book to all Dresden fans.
I haven't read any of Simon R. Green's novels, though I've heard of the Nightside series and thought about picking one up. If "The Difference a Day Makes" is typical, though, I may not bother. He is a good writer, so I'm not sure what it is that bothered me so much. I know that something framed as one of the nastiest things people could choose to do in this piece isn't even in my top 10, but I feel there's something else that I just can't quite articulate yet.
I've read all three of Kat Richardson's Greywalker novels and enjoyed them enough that I plan to keep reading. "The Third Death of the Little Clay Dog" is my favorite piece of her work, hands down. There's more light, somehow, and that's important to me.
"Noah's Orphans" is my first exposure to Thomas E. Sniegoski, as far as I can recall. It was an interesting piece. I found myself wondering about Remy Chandler's past, about how the character has developed. If there are novels featuring that character, I may give them a read. In any case, it brought up some interesting questions about faith and obedience. I think it would have been more personally relevant to me about 20 years ago, though.
Jim Butcher's "Warrior," the first piece, is very good. It follows Harry and the Carpenter family after they experienced some major changes in the last Dresden novel. I could have stood a little more Molly, but Harry and Michael were the focus characters and they worked out some things that really needed to be dealt with. I'm glad I read this before the next Dresden novel, because I feel there's important character development. I seriously recommend this book to all Dresden fans.
I haven't read any of Simon R. Green's novels, though I've heard of the Nightside series and thought about picking one up. If "The Difference a Day Makes" is typical, though, I may not bother. He is a good writer, so I'm not sure what it is that bothered me so much. I know that something framed as one of the nastiest things people could choose to do in this piece isn't even in my top 10, but I feel there's something else that I just can't quite articulate yet.
I've read all three of Kat Richardson's Greywalker novels and enjoyed them enough that I plan to keep reading. "The Third Death of the Little Clay Dog" is my favorite piece of her work, hands down. There's more light, somehow, and that's important to me.
"Noah's Orphans" is my first exposure to Thomas E. Sniegoski, as far as I can recall. It was an interesting piece. I found myself wondering about Remy Chandler's past, about how the character has developed. If there are novels featuring that character, I may give them a read. In any case, it brought up some interesting questions about faith and obedience. I think it would have been more personally relevant to me about 20 years ago, though.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
After having spent the first two films focused on the common story of Dracula with a comedic spin and family focused story line. Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation introduces the tale of Van Helsing and his family who have spent ages trying to exterminate Dracula and all the monsters of the world.
After centuries of running the Hotel Transylvania and escaping extinction, Drac (Adam Sandler), his daughter Mavis (Selena Gomez), and crew of oddball and lovable friends and family embark on their first vacation aboard a monstrous filled cruise ship headed for the lost city of Atlantis by way of the Bermuda Triangle. Feeling lonely, ready to find love again, Drac ends up ‘zinging’ with the human cruise director, Ericka (Kathryn Hahn). As you may recall from the first installment, to ‘zing’ only happens once in a monster’s life when two individuals first meet eyes, they find their true love and in that moment are meant to spend the rest of their lives together. Attempting to keep their rendezvous and connection a secret from Mavis, Drac decides to recruit his loyal subjects to help him distract his daughter. As the ship starts narrowing in on the Las Vegas-esque lost city of Atlantis, Mavis grows very suspicious of what her father is up to. She decides to start tracking his every move and realizes their vacation is not all it’s cracked up to be.
From the imaginative mind of Director Genndy Tartokovsky. HT3 is dazzling animated film that brings all the laughs, and humor that one can expect when Adam Sandler and his motley crew of usual suspects are involved. When you involve such talent as Steven Duscemi, Adam Sandberg, Fran Drescher, Molly Shannon, Kevin James, and Mel Brooks to helm the character voices, it’s guaranteed to be a fun filled ride that will keep you laughing from one moment to the next. A wise cracking, witty summer treat that teaches the importance of seeing past our differences and accepting people/monster’s for who they are and realize we’re not so different to begin with.
After centuries of running the Hotel Transylvania and escaping extinction, Drac (Adam Sandler), his daughter Mavis (Selena Gomez), and crew of oddball and lovable friends and family embark on their first vacation aboard a monstrous filled cruise ship headed for the lost city of Atlantis by way of the Bermuda Triangle. Feeling lonely, ready to find love again, Drac ends up ‘zinging’ with the human cruise director, Ericka (Kathryn Hahn). As you may recall from the first installment, to ‘zing’ only happens once in a monster’s life when two individuals first meet eyes, they find their true love and in that moment are meant to spend the rest of their lives together. Attempting to keep their rendezvous and connection a secret from Mavis, Drac decides to recruit his loyal subjects to help him distract his daughter. As the ship starts narrowing in on the Las Vegas-esque lost city of Atlantis, Mavis grows very suspicious of what her father is up to. She decides to start tracking his every move and realizes their vacation is not all it’s cracked up to be.
From the imaginative mind of Director Genndy Tartokovsky. HT3 is dazzling animated film that brings all the laughs, and humor that one can expect when Adam Sandler and his motley crew of usual suspects are involved. When you involve such talent as Steven Duscemi, Adam Sandberg, Fran Drescher, Molly Shannon, Kevin James, and Mel Brooks to helm the character voices, it’s guaranteed to be a fun filled ride that will keep you laughing from one moment to the next. A wise cracking, witty summer treat that teaches the importance of seeing past our differences and accepting people/monster’s for who they are and realize we’re not so different to begin with.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Life of the Party (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Deanna (Melissa McCarthy) has spent the past 21 years being a dedicated wife and mother. Her and her husband Dan (Matt Walsh) have delivered their only daughter, Maddie (Molly Gordon) to their alma mater for her Senior year at college. As Deanna and Dan leave to what she thinks is their romantic trip to Italy, Dan breaks the information that 1. He wants a divorce and 2. He has been seeing Marcie (Julie Bowen) for a while and is in love with her. In a tailspin, Deanna retreats to her parents Mike and Sandy (Stephen Root and Jacki Weaver, respectively)feeling upended and lost.
While recovering from the emotional bomb, her best friend Christine (Maya Rudolph as that BFF who says all things unedited and is SO VERY Ride or Die) helps to pull her (and the audience) out of the dark depths with the best drunk racquetball sideline ever. The chemistry between McCarthy and Rudolph feels like two naturals riffing off with each other. Their interchanges throughout the film had me snort-laughing throughout.
Deanna decides that since she did not graduate with her degree due to motherhood and Dan, it’s an opportunity to finish and pursue her dream of being an archaeologist. Dee registers and lets her daughter know of the huge changes happening. Dee can come off as a Pollyanna to a degree, but it is her can do, positive attitude that eventually helps her ride out the rollercoaster for her senior year.
Once she is entrenched in the school year, her daughter’s friends bring her into their circle and forces her to life the college life instead of only studying all the time. She meets the very handsome Jack ( Luke Benward) a much younger man, teaching him the finer arts of canoodling of a more experienced kind.
The film is cleverly written and produced by McCarthy and Ben Falcone (her husband) at the helm directing this movie. Melissa, is brilliant at giving us wonderfully unexpected physical comedy with fantastic comic timing. The cast, have given us an enjoyable movie that is a heartily, welcomed respite.
Life of the Party is a fun Girls Night Out.
While recovering from the emotional bomb, her best friend Christine (Maya Rudolph as that BFF who says all things unedited and is SO VERY Ride or Die) helps to pull her (and the audience) out of the dark depths with the best drunk racquetball sideline ever. The chemistry between McCarthy and Rudolph feels like two naturals riffing off with each other. Their interchanges throughout the film had me snort-laughing throughout.
Deanna decides that since she did not graduate with her degree due to motherhood and Dan, it’s an opportunity to finish and pursue her dream of being an archaeologist. Dee registers and lets her daughter know of the huge changes happening. Dee can come off as a Pollyanna to a degree, but it is her can do, positive attitude that eventually helps her ride out the rollercoaster for her senior year.
Once she is entrenched in the school year, her daughter’s friends bring her into their circle and forces her to life the college life instead of only studying all the time. She meets the very handsome Jack ( Luke Benward) a much younger man, teaching him the finer arts of canoodling of a more experienced kind.
The film is cleverly written and produced by McCarthy and Ben Falcone (her husband) at the helm directing this movie. Melissa, is brilliant at giving us wonderfully unexpected physical comedy with fantastic comic timing. The cast, have given us an enjoyable movie that is a heartily, welcomed respite.
Life of the Party is a fun Girls Night Out.
Losing it: A Lifetime in Pursuit of Sporting Excellence
Book
To understand Anna Karenina, Mellors, Molly Bloom, Dante, Romeo, Juliet and Bridget Jones you must...
Mrs Guppy Takes a Flight: A Scandal of Victorian Spiritualism
Book
Many moons ago, in the high Victorian era, Mrs. Guppy, the famous medium, was enjoying a sparkling...
Kathleen Hanna recommended Ballad Of The Insolent Pup by Thee Headcoatees in Music (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Table 19 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Mean spirited and atrocious.
I really hated this film. There. BOOM. Got it off my chest.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated When Patty Went Away in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href=http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
The blurb intrigued me a lot. This was a book I really wanted to read. However, I was a bit disappointed when I finally got a chance to read it.
The title definitely fits the book for at least the second half. (I'll go into more detail about that later). The title reminds me of someone who checks out of reality though.
I like the serene look of the cover. I don't really know how it ties into the book though. The cover made me think more of a holiday romance type.
I can't really fault the world building. I thought it was done rather well and very believable. From a historic viewpoint, the facts and events were all correct. It was interesting that Ms. Burt chose to narrate through the point of view of a man. She did a great job of making it work though. There was one or two times I felt a bit confused, but I put it down to just a personal thing like maybe I wasn't paying as much attention as I should've been. The only thing that bothered me was when the narrator of the book would suddenly start talking about a memory. It was too sudden, and I didn't know if it was happening in present time or if it was indeed a memory. I felt as if a memory could've had a better introduction so the audience was aware that it happened at another time in the book.
I felt that the pacing was too slow for about the first two-thirds of the book. It seemed to drone on and on about a topic I wasn't that interested in (farming). I realize that Ms. Burt was setting up a back story, but there was too much focus on the whole farming aspect of the book and not about Patty disappearing as the title and the blurb would suggest. Once the main character goes to Montreal, the pacing picks up decently, and it becomes a book that I had a hard time putting down.
The whole story line was a bit weak, I felt. First off, it reads like two books. The first two-thirds of the book is about a family who has lost their farm due to a bad storm. The reader then takes a journey into finding out how this family struggles to survive without their means of income. I found it a bit tedious because I don't really care about farming, and this book used a lot of farming terminology. The last third of the book is when Jack goes to Montreal to look for Patty. This explores the seedy side of Montreal (which could be just about anywhere) and prostitution involving runaways. I thought the story line was strong during this bit.
I felt that Jack was a well developed character and very likable. It was easy to feel what he was feeling and to feel sorry for him with all that he was going through. Molly is a strict God fearing woman. However, I felt that there was too much focus on her being overweight which was uncalled for. I didn't really like how Christianity was portrayed when it came to Molly. I'm sure there are people in the world like her, but there were times when I just felt a bit offended. I would've loved to know more about Patty and Edie as individuals. I just felt like they didn't get enough time throughout the book, Patty especially. I found it a bit hard to care about Edie and Patty especially as I felt like I didn't have enough information on them to care.
The dialogue fit this book very well. However, I think a lot of people will struggle with the farming terminology and have a hard time relating to the whole farm scenario. As I've said before, this book reads like two books in one. To further prove my point, even the dialogue is different. During the whole family losing their farm scenario, the language isn't vulgar nor is there any swearing (that I could remember). Once Jack gets to Montreal, the language turns a bit vulgar, and there is some swearing.
Overall, When Patty Went Away is just an alright read. The plot could've been better and the merging of ideas could've been smoother. Saying that, the main character is very likable and the world building was good.
I'd recommend this book to those 18+ who know something about farming or those who want a book that will last awhile.
<b>I'd give When Patty Went Away by Jeannie Burt a 2.5 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free paperback of this book from LibraryThing for free in exchange for a fair and honest review).
The blurb intrigued me a lot. This was a book I really wanted to read. However, I was a bit disappointed when I finally got a chance to read it.
The title definitely fits the book for at least the second half. (I'll go into more detail about that later). The title reminds me of someone who checks out of reality though.
I like the serene look of the cover. I don't really know how it ties into the book though. The cover made me think more of a holiday romance type.
I can't really fault the world building. I thought it was done rather well and very believable. From a historic viewpoint, the facts and events were all correct. It was interesting that Ms. Burt chose to narrate through the point of view of a man. She did a great job of making it work though. There was one or two times I felt a bit confused, but I put it down to just a personal thing like maybe I wasn't paying as much attention as I should've been. The only thing that bothered me was when the narrator of the book would suddenly start talking about a memory. It was too sudden, and I didn't know if it was happening in present time or if it was indeed a memory. I felt as if a memory could've had a better introduction so the audience was aware that it happened at another time in the book.
I felt that the pacing was too slow for about the first two-thirds of the book. It seemed to drone on and on about a topic I wasn't that interested in (farming). I realize that Ms. Burt was setting up a back story, but there was too much focus on the whole farming aspect of the book and not about Patty disappearing as the title and the blurb would suggest. Once the main character goes to Montreal, the pacing picks up decently, and it becomes a book that I had a hard time putting down.
The whole story line was a bit weak, I felt. First off, it reads like two books. The first two-thirds of the book is about a family who has lost their farm due to a bad storm. The reader then takes a journey into finding out how this family struggles to survive without their means of income. I found it a bit tedious because I don't really care about farming, and this book used a lot of farming terminology. The last third of the book is when Jack goes to Montreal to look for Patty. This explores the seedy side of Montreal (which could be just about anywhere) and prostitution involving runaways. I thought the story line was strong during this bit.
I felt that Jack was a well developed character and very likable. It was easy to feel what he was feeling and to feel sorry for him with all that he was going through. Molly is a strict God fearing woman. However, I felt that there was too much focus on her being overweight which was uncalled for. I didn't really like how Christianity was portrayed when it came to Molly. I'm sure there are people in the world like her, but there were times when I just felt a bit offended. I would've loved to know more about Patty and Edie as individuals. I just felt like they didn't get enough time throughout the book, Patty especially. I found it a bit hard to care about Edie and Patty especially as I felt like I didn't have enough information on them to care.
The dialogue fit this book very well. However, I think a lot of people will struggle with the farming terminology and have a hard time relating to the whole farm scenario. As I've said before, this book reads like two books in one. To further prove my point, even the dialogue is different. During the whole family losing their farm scenario, the language isn't vulgar nor is there any swearing (that I could remember). Once Jack gets to Montreal, the language turns a bit vulgar, and there is some swearing.
Overall, When Patty Went Away is just an alright read. The plot could've been better and the merging of ideas could've been smoother. Saying that, the main character is very likable and the world building was good.
I'd recommend this book to those 18+ who know something about farming or those who want a book that will last awhile.
<b>I'd give When Patty Went Away by Jeannie Burt a 2.5 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free paperback of this book from LibraryThing for free in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Alice (12 KP) rated Hanging Tree: The Sixth PC Grant Mystery in Books
Jul 3, 2018
What can I say about The Hanging Tree that isn’t good? It was a satisfying installment to the series but there was still something missing for me. It had the usual characters and the usual awkwardness with Peter Grant and the Met and the demi-monde which as always was written to the same standard.
However, there were a few parts of this book that bugged me which I’ll go through shortly.
The Hanging Tree is the sixth installment of the bestselling Peter Grant/Rivers of London series and finally there is some proper river action. This book centers around Tyburn or Lady Ty as she is affectionately known. Lady Ty for those of you who don’t know is an overwhelming bitch with a major Goddess complex – with good reason really.
This book follows Peter as he helps to investigate the murder of a teenager – don’t let this fool you, the principal suspect in the murder is one of the family Rivers. This kicks off simultaneous police investigations and Folly blow-ups abound.
First, the things I liked:
The reappearance of much loved characters such as Nightingale, Molly, Guleed, Stefanopaulos and even Seawoll.
The introduction of new characters
The familiar writing style
The monologuing of Peter Grant
The plot
The return of some characters I won’t name and
The revelations!!!
Now, I hate to do this really (and I despise using bullet points as a side note) but needs must.
Things I disliked:
The overuse of the term white to describe characters that had no context and almost no bearing on the story-line whatsoever – I’m almost positive I counted at least 15 uses of the word “white” in the first 30% of the book, sometimes more than once a page. The worst use of this – for me – was “a scary white waitress”, I don’t know about you, but the need to describe a character based solely on their skin tone is a big no no for me. It lacked context and bearing on the part of the story at hand.
The return of some characters I won’t name – what the actual fuck Ben? That’s wrong! They can’t be better than Peter!
Now despite my reservations and the things I disliked, I did enjoy this book. In the end. It took about 60% for this book to grab my attention with both hands which I suppose could be construed as a bad thing, however that first two thirds set up the ending in a great way. The culmination of multiple prolonged story arcs were a welcome wrap up to this installment and I look forward to the next.
However, there were a few parts of this book that bugged me which I’ll go through shortly.
The Hanging Tree is the sixth installment of the bestselling Peter Grant/Rivers of London series and finally there is some proper river action. This book centers around Tyburn or Lady Ty as she is affectionately known. Lady Ty for those of you who don’t know is an overwhelming bitch with a major Goddess complex – with good reason really.
This book follows Peter as he helps to investigate the murder of a teenager – don’t let this fool you, the principal suspect in the murder is one of the family Rivers. This kicks off simultaneous police investigations and Folly blow-ups abound.
First, the things I liked:
The reappearance of much loved characters such as Nightingale, Molly, Guleed, Stefanopaulos and even Seawoll.
The introduction of new characters
The familiar writing style
The monologuing of Peter Grant
The plot
The return of some characters I won’t name and
The revelations!!!
Now, I hate to do this really (and I despise using bullet points as a side note) but needs must.
Things I disliked:
The overuse of the term white to describe characters that had no context and almost no bearing on the story-line whatsoever – I’m almost positive I counted at least 15 uses of the word “white” in the first 30% of the book, sometimes more than once a page. The worst use of this – for me – was “a scary white waitress”, I don’t know about you, but the need to describe a character based solely on their skin tone is a big no no for me. It lacked context and bearing on the part of the story at hand.
The return of some characters I won’t name – what the actual fuck Ben? That’s wrong! They can’t be better than Peter!
Now despite my reservations and the things I disliked, I did enjoy this book. In the end. It took about 60% for this book to grab my attention with both hands which I suppose could be construed as a bad thing, however that first two thirds set up the ending in a great way. The culmination of multiple prolonged story arcs were a welcome wrap up to this installment and I look forward to the next.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Repetitive. (1 more)
Too similar to other R-rated teen comedies.
Thor Casts Anal Bead Nunchucks
“Bean Bag Boys for life!” In Good Boys, that’s the motto for three 12-year-old best friends that are finding the sixth grade way more profound and coercing than the fifth grade or any other grade before it ever was. Max (Jacob Tremblay) is at the age where girls aren’t so gross and are actually quite arousing, Thor (Brady Noon) is giving up on who he is and what he loves in a bold attempt to try to fit in with kids who he thinks are cool, and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) mostly just loves Magic: The Gathering, treating women with respect, and being honest.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.