Search
Search results
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Divorce has been depicted many times onscreen, as it’s one of those difficult realities about adult relationships. There’s still a lot of stigma around the breakdown of a marriage, but Marriage Story deals with the topic in a very raw and unique way.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated My Spy (2019) in Movies
Apr 4, 2020
Eleven months after first being slated for release we finally got My Spy in the cinema. With its predecessors like Playing With Fire, The Pacifier and The Game Plan leaving a very mixed tough guy/kid's movie playing field I wasn't expecting great things.
JJ has stepped over the line one too many times and now he's relegated to surveillance with Bobbi, the agency tech wizard. Their mission is to stay put and watch the wife and child of a man who was connected to the case.
When they get to their stakeout position the last thing they expect is to be made by the very person they're watching. Sophie may only be 9 but she's no fool and she's about to use her new found leverage to her benefit.
I absolutely loved this, it was looking a little rough at the start but I genuinely enjoyed myself once it hit its stride.
But it was a 12A? Honestly astounded to see that pop up at the beginning, I would have assumed it would be a PG, but that extra allowance gave the film a bit more colour.
This comedy felt perfect for Dave Bautista, I don't think I've seen him in a role that really felt suited to him, I like his humour but even the lovable Drax was always a bit off. Everest in Hotel Artemis was probably the best until I saw this. I love that he got a chance to do a mix of drama and comedy all in one film.
His pairing with Kristen Schaal as Bobbi was such fun. Their completely different approaches coupled with her to-the-point attitude make for a great team. Bobbi's adoration and desire to do more fieldwork is played off incredibly well.
I'm not usually a fan of child actors, it can seem forced and unnatural, but Chloe Coleman as Sophie is savage and I love it. Her standing up to JJ and her vulnerable side comes over so well, I genuinely enjoyed her acting and her comic timing, I can't wait to see her in more things.
The only actor I would query is Ken Jeong, he's funny and I find him generally amusing in most things he does but in this A) he wasn't entirely believable in the role and B) his humour was a step apart from the rest of the script, his parts in particular weren't in scenes designed for humour. It was the only part of the film that made me pause as I watched it, but it wasn't a massively negative impact on the whole.
We get some great settings and amazing action style sequences, the ones with both Bautista and Coleman had some real heart and humour. The whole storyline where he teaches her how to spy is amusing and well done.
I really did enjoy My Spy, that 12A totally helped it from being like those before it, the script could be aimed more at adults and the humour could cover both adult and children's amusement, it's a great stress-free film and I would absolutely watch it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/my-spy-movie-review.html
JJ has stepped over the line one too many times and now he's relegated to surveillance with Bobbi, the agency tech wizard. Their mission is to stay put and watch the wife and child of a man who was connected to the case.
When they get to their stakeout position the last thing they expect is to be made by the very person they're watching. Sophie may only be 9 but she's no fool and she's about to use her new found leverage to her benefit.
I absolutely loved this, it was looking a little rough at the start but I genuinely enjoyed myself once it hit its stride.
But it was a 12A? Honestly astounded to see that pop up at the beginning, I would have assumed it would be a PG, but that extra allowance gave the film a bit more colour.
This comedy felt perfect for Dave Bautista, I don't think I've seen him in a role that really felt suited to him, I like his humour but even the lovable Drax was always a bit off. Everest in Hotel Artemis was probably the best until I saw this. I love that he got a chance to do a mix of drama and comedy all in one film.
His pairing with Kristen Schaal as Bobbi was such fun. Their completely different approaches coupled with her to-the-point attitude make for a great team. Bobbi's adoration and desire to do more fieldwork is played off incredibly well.
I'm not usually a fan of child actors, it can seem forced and unnatural, but Chloe Coleman as Sophie is savage and I love it. Her standing up to JJ and her vulnerable side comes over so well, I genuinely enjoyed her acting and her comic timing, I can't wait to see her in more things.
The only actor I would query is Ken Jeong, he's funny and I find him generally amusing in most things he does but in this A) he wasn't entirely believable in the role and B) his humour was a step apart from the rest of the script, his parts in particular weren't in scenes designed for humour. It was the only part of the film that made me pause as I watched it, but it wasn't a massively negative impact on the whole.
We get some great settings and amazing action style sequences, the ones with both Bautista and Coleman had some real heart and humour. The whole storyline where he teaches her how to spy is amusing and well done.
I really did enjoy My Spy, that 12A totally helped it from being like those before it, the script could be aimed more at adults and the humour could cover both adult and children's amusement, it's a great stress-free film and I would absolutely watch it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/my-spy-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The LEGO Movie (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Could The LEGO Movie just be considered one hour and a half long commercial for a children’s toy product? Absolutely. Does that make the movie any less entertaining? Nope! I grew up in the eighties. A time when toy manufacturers would make TV shows, mixing up entertainment with advertising in the tender minds of their youth demographic, and doing it well. We seem to be in a new age of that very same ethos of ultra-marketing, only now we have the internet to exacerbate the matter. That all said, The LEGO Movie is perhaps one of the cleverest, funniest, and perhaps most creative films I’ve seen in a long while. It’s enjoyable, fresh, and seems to celebrate with reckless abandon the joyous chaos of childhood play over the blind consumption of product.
The comforting, self-aware, almost self-deprecating tone that has found its way into the LEGO videogames that have been hitting the markets lately that defines The LEGO Movie. The film takes place in a world made of LEGOs, and the characters all have snap-on/snap-off hair and can merrily disassemble the world around them and build again from the ruins. And while it’s not filmed in stop-motion (which was more disappointing than I thought it would be), the characters have the pleasantly stiff and jerky movement that is the trademark to the style. It’s essentially a film with the rules of a young boy at play, just making it up as things progress.
Even the story felt like it was straight from a children’s book. An average, run-of-the-mill, Joe… well, Emmet (Chris Pratt) falls unsuspectingly into an adventure involving freedom fighters, superheroes, and villains in a very Matrix-esque plot. When he stumbles upon the legendary Piece of Resistance, the only force that can undo the Kragle, a mysterious weapon being used by Lord Business/President Business (Will Ferrell), Emmet begins his journey to fulfill the prophecy and become the best “master builder” in all the world. Along the way he is helped by a plethora of recognizable, and not so recognizable, characters including Batman (Will Arnett), Shaquille O’Neil (Himself), Vitruvious (Morgan Freeman) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks).
Most children’s films these days, especially in the CGI genre, tend to be lighting fast paced, basically overloading you with unfunny material hoping to distract your from how lame the movie really is. While The LEGO Movie is frantic, it feels like controlled chaos. It has a point. There is a direction where all this weird wild silliness is headed. And while The LEGO Movie would be fine were it just a frantic and clever child’s comedy, it additionally bothers to reach beyond its bounds and address its own artificiality in a plot twist that was way more clever, daring and meaningful than anything seen in most modern adult thrillers. But I don’t want to spoil that for you.
So here it is again, my “Would I buy it” test. Absolutely. The LEGO Movie is great fun and a joyous celebration of the chaos I recall as childhood.
The comforting, self-aware, almost self-deprecating tone that has found its way into the LEGO videogames that have been hitting the markets lately that defines The LEGO Movie. The film takes place in a world made of LEGOs, and the characters all have snap-on/snap-off hair and can merrily disassemble the world around them and build again from the ruins. And while it’s not filmed in stop-motion (which was more disappointing than I thought it would be), the characters have the pleasantly stiff and jerky movement that is the trademark to the style. It’s essentially a film with the rules of a young boy at play, just making it up as things progress.
Even the story felt like it was straight from a children’s book. An average, run-of-the-mill, Joe… well, Emmet (Chris Pratt) falls unsuspectingly into an adventure involving freedom fighters, superheroes, and villains in a very Matrix-esque plot. When he stumbles upon the legendary Piece of Resistance, the only force that can undo the Kragle, a mysterious weapon being used by Lord Business/President Business (Will Ferrell), Emmet begins his journey to fulfill the prophecy and become the best “master builder” in all the world. Along the way he is helped by a plethora of recognizable, and not so recognizable, characters including Batman (Will Arnett), Shaquille O’Neil (Himself), Vitruvious (Morgan Freeman) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks).
Most children’s films these days, especially in the CGI genre, tend to be lighting fast paced, basically overloading you with unfunny material hoping to distract your from how lame the movie really is. While The LEGO Movie is frantic, it feels like controlled chaos. It has a point. There is a direction where all this weird wild silliness is headed. And while The LEGO Movie would be fine were it just a frantic and clever child’s comedy, it additionally bothers to reach beyond its bounds and address its own artificiality in a plot twist that was way more clever, daring and meaningful than anything seen in most modern adult thrillers. But I don’t want to spoil that for you.
So here it is again, my “Would I buy it” test. Absolutely. The LEGO Movie is great fun and a joyous celebration of the chaos I recall as childhood.
Journey by Moonlight
Antal Szerb, Len Rix and Eoin Ryan
Book
A major classic of 1930s literature, Antal Szerb's Journey by Moonlight (Utas es Holdvilag) is the...
Erika (17788 KP) rated Shadow and Bone - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021
Shadow and Bone is based upon the popular Young Adult series, The Grisha Trilogy, which takes place in a steampunk-ish, Russian fantasy world at war. The story’s main character is Alina Starkov (Jessie Mei Li), an orphan who discovers she has some magical powers when she journeys into something called the Fold with her childhood friend Malyen, “Mal” (Archie Renaux), for short. The witches in this fantasy world are called Grisha and are trained to help with military operations for some king. The General of this witch army is Kirigan, played by Ben Barnes. There are also two other storylines, this group of kidnappers, and a Grisha that’s enslaved.
This series wasn’t really made for a general audience, it was made for the fans of the book trilogy. The series starts, and the watcher is immediately thrust into this fantasy world that doesn’t really make much sense with no prior knowledge. If you couldn’t tell from the series description, I wasn’t really into it. It took me two months to watch all eight of the episodes. I almost didn’t keep watching after the first two episodes, but my boss encouraged me to keep going.
The storyline is your standard YA novel, a girl who didn’t know her powers, some lame love triangle, and for some reason, the girl is the only one that can save the world. Nothing new to see here. My interest was only piqued by Barnes’ character Kirigan, and Barnes was the main reason I actually kept watching the show. The seventh episode, which features Kirigan’s backstory, was the most interesting.
The whole kidnapping crew storyline wasn’t really all that interesting. The leader, Kaz (Freddy Carter) is a kingpin-type character with an unexplained limp, or I missed the explanation. The crew also had an assassin-type character, Inej (Amita Suman), who might not really have been an assassin, again, missed that explanation. The best member of this crew was Jesper (Kit Young), who was the charmer, expert trick shooter, and the second most interesting character in the series.
The subplot with the whole kidnapping Alina thing was neither here nor there, I don’t even remember the characters’ names that were involved in this subplot. Maybe it meant something to the readers of the novels, or it’ll make sense in the next season, but it certainly didn’t mean anything to me. I think I fast-forwarded through those portions in the last episode.
I think I started liking it after the seventh episode, but two interesting episodes does not make an interesting series. It’s been about a week since I finished it, and I honestly had to look up all the characters’ names. I probably seem flippant about explaining the different plots, but it’s legitimately all I remember. This series also didn’t leave me with a hankering to read the book series, nor would I care to watch any further seasons. I’m sure if you’re a fan of the book series, you’d probably love this, but it was not for me.
This series wasn’t really made for a general audience, it was made for the fans of the book trilogy. The series starts, and the watcher is immediately thrust into this fantasy world that doesn’t really make much sense with no prior knowledge. If you couldn’t tell from the series description, I wasn’t really into it. It took me two months to watch all eight of the episodes. I almost didn’t keep watching after the first two episodes, but my boss encouraged me to keep going.
The storyline is your standard YA novel, a girl who didn’t know her powers, some lame love triangle, and for some reason, the girl is the only one that can save the world. Nothing new to see here. My interest was only piqued by Barnes’ character Kirigan, and Barnes was the main reason I actually kept watching the show. The seventh episode, which features Kirigan’s backstory, was the most interesting.
The whole kidnapping crew storyline wasn’t really all that interesting. The leader, Kaz (Freddy Carter) is a kingpin-type character with an unexplained limp, or I missed the explanation. The crew also had an assassin-type character, Inej (Amita Suman), who might not really have been an assassin, again, missed that explanation. The best member of this crew was Jesper (Kit Young), who was the charmer, expert trick shooter, and the second most interesting character in the series.
The subplot with the whole kidnapping Alina thing was neither here nor there, I don’t even remember the characters’ names that were involved in this subplot. Maybe it meant something to the readers of the novels, or it’ll make sense in the next season, but it certainly didn’t mean anything to me. I think I fast-forwarded through those portions in the last episode.
I think I started liking it after the seventh episode, but two interesting episodes does not make an interesting series. It’s been about a week since I finished it, and I honestly had to look up all the characters’ names. I probably seem flippant about explaining the different plots, but it’s legitimately all I remember. This series also didn’t leave me with a hankering to read the book series, nor would I care to watch any further seasons. I’m sure if you’re a fan of the book series, you’d probably love this, but it was not for me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 1, 2019
Entertaining Enough
In the battle of DC vs Marvel in the Cinematic world, the prevailing theory is that DC is "righting the ship" with back-to-back decent films - AQUAMAN and SHAZAM. And...after viewing both of these films, I will agree that they are moving the ship in the correct direction, but they have a long, long way to go before they can say they have "righted" this ship.
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
AdGuard Pro - adblock and privacy protection
Utilities and Productivity
5.0
Rate It
App
Due to the enforcement of Apple's policy regarding blocking ads across the device, Adguard Pro had...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
The rule of threes is a pretty solid philosophy. We find things repeated in triplicate satisfying and complete. There is no rule of four, it isn’t a thing. Four is usually one too many… and this was the fear for all Pixar and Toy Story fans when this project was announced, fairly unexpectedly, in 2018. Toy Story 3 was a beautiful and heart-rending end to the saga of Woody, Buzz and co. It was an end. Wasn’t it? Everything worth saying had been said, and it was all tied up in a plastic bow rather perfectly.
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Monster High (Monster High, #1) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I am twenty years old and I loved this book more than I think an intelligent college student should. There were just way to many things that kept me from not turning the pages and walking away. In fact, I have only one negative thing to say about this book.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>