Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Better Together in Books
Jun 10, 2021
A cute albeit long read about family and finding yourself
Jamie and Siri wind up at the same Re-Discover Yourself Retreat at Colorado because their lives are both slowly crumbling. Jamie is an aspiring comic in LA, but she can't seem to make it through her set without throwing up. She's been kicked out of her apartment and is back at home, stuck living under her famous father's oppressive thumb. As for Siri, ballet is her entire life. But when she suffers a career-ending injury, everything she's planned for falls apart. Jamie and Siri also happen to be sisters. They've grown up entirely apart: Jamie lives with their dad in LA and Siri with their mom in New Jersey. When they reunite at the retreat, they decide to switch places and seek revenge on their estranged parents. With the help of a little magic (yes, actual magic), Jamie shows up in New Jersey, looking just like Siri and Siri arrives in LA, looking like Jamie. Before they know it, Siri's hanging out with (and falling for) Jamie's best friend Dawn. And independent Jamie might be making an actual attachment with Zarar, their instructor from camp. But can Jamie and Siri set out to do what they planned--right their childhood wrongs?
"The day everything fell apart three months ago, I tripped into this anger ditch, and I can't seem to find my way out." -Siri
I stumbled across this book because it was billed as The Parent Trap meets Freaky Friday and well, sign me up. To me, there's not a ton of The Parent Trap here, as the goal isn't to reunite Siri and Jamie's parents, but rather seek some sort of vengeance on them, as they basically split the kids up when they were six and four and then each parent abandoned one of the siblings. Jamie and Siri never saw each other again, and Siri's mom told her Jamie was imaginary. So, um, yeah she has some baggage. The parents come across as pretty hideous here, to tell you the truth! (Reexamining The Parent Trap as an adult and parent is quite eye-opening!)
Also, reading some of the other reviews for this book, apparently there is some sort of rating controversy and issue with the author? I had no clue about any of this. I have no idea who Christine Riccio is. I am one of those people who dislikes videos of all kinds. News article is only a video? Won't watch. I don't even really like Instagram reels let alone Youtube. I don't even love that my car has a backup camera. So whatever drama surrounds this book totally escapes me. If you don't like a book about magic, I guess don't read a book about magic? I thought this was pretty cute. Anyway, just a disclaimer, I guess, that my review has nothing to do with any of whatever that drama is.
You need to go into BETTER TOGETHER prepared to suspend a little disbelief if you want to fully enjoy it. There is magic involved--a happy haunted trail at the retreat that leads to the sisters looking like each other. Jamie and Siri already look really similar, so it didn't seem like maybe they needed that? (You don't in the The Parent Trap, this purist says!) Then there is their terrible parents. It's sort of hard to believe people that awful exist.
But if you accept the magic and the awful parents, this is a cute book. Is it weird? Sure. But it was definitely better than I expected after reading all the hater reviews. I liked Jamie and Siri. They were flawed (pretty expected after those parents) but funny. There's some great bisexual representation and while the book is about family, forgiveness, and reuniting, there's some sweet side romantic plots, too. Siri and Dawn were pretty adorable. And Zarar, their canoe instructor who winds up in New York, is just a cutie. Siri and Dawn each have a grandparent living near/with them who offers some great comedic relief, as well.
The story is told from Jamie and Siri's perspectives and sometimes it takes a moment to remember which sister is speaking, though the chapters are labeled. As the book progresses, you get more used to which sister is which. Siri has a very annoying quirk where she says things like "intercoursing" instead of the f-word, which grew old quickly. The book was long--there definitely could have been some cutting down.
Still, this was a cute read and I enjoyed Siri and Jamie's story and watching each of them come into their own. I have Riccio's first book on my shelf, and I'll definitely pick it up at some point. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Wednesday Books and Netgalley, along with Goodreads, in return for an unbiased review. Look for BETTER TOGETHER on 06/01/2021!
"The day everything fell apart three months ago, I tripped into this anger ditch, and I can't seem to find my way out." -Siri
I stumbled across this book because it was billed as The Parent Trap meets Freaky Friday and well, sign me up. To me, there's not a ton of The Parent Trap here, as the goal isn't to reunite Siri and Jamie's parents, but rather seek some sort of vengeance on them, as they basically split the kids up when they were six and four and then each parent abandoned one of the siblings. Jamie and Siri never saw each other again, and Siri's mom told her Jamie was imaginary. So, um, yeah she has some baggage. The parents come across as pretty hideous here, to tell you the truth! (Reexamining The Parent Trap as an adult and parent is quite eye-opening!)
Also, reading some of the other reviews for this book, apparently there is some sort of rating controversy and issue with the author? I had no clue about any of this. I have no idea who Christine Riccio is. I am one of those people who dislikes videos of all kinds. News article is only a video? Won't watch. I don't even really like Instagram reels let alone Youtube. I don't even love that my car has a backup camera. So whatever drama surrounds this book totally escapes me. If you don't like a book about magic, I guess don't read a book about magic? I thought this was pretty cute. Anyway, just a disclaimer, I guess, that my review has nothing to do with any of whatever that drama is.
You need to go into BETTER TOGETHER prepared to suspend a little disbelief if you want to fully enjoy it. There is magic involved--a happy haunted trail at the retreat that leads to the sisters looking like each other. Jamie and Siri already look really similar, so it didn't seem like maybe they needed that? (You don't in the The Parent Trap, this purist says!) Then there is their terrible parents. It's sort of hard to believe people that awful exist.
But if you accept the magic and the awful parents, this is a cute book. Is it weird? Sure. But it was definitely better than I expected after reading all the hater reviews. I liked Jamie and Siri. They were flawed (pretty expected after those parents) but funny. There's some great bisexual representation and while the book is about family, forgiveness, and reuniting, there's some sweet side romantic plots, too. Siri and Dawn were pretty adorable. And Zarar, their canoe instructor who winds up in New York, is just a cutie. Siri and Dawn each have a grandparent living near/with them who offers some great comedic relief, as well.
The story is told from Jamie and Siri's perspectives and sometimes it takes a moment to remember which sister is speaking, though the chapters are labeled. As the book progresses, you get more used to which sister is which. Siri has a very annoying quirk where she says things like "intercoursing" instead of the f-word, which grew old quickly. The book was long--there definitely could have been some cutting down.
Still, this was a cute read and I enjoyed Siri and Jamie's story and watching each of them come into their own. I have Riccio's first book on my shelf, and I'll definitely pick it up at some point. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Wednesday Books and Netgalley, along with Goodreads, in return for an unbiased review. Look for BETTER TOGETHER on 06/01/2021!
Hadley (567 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Jun 5, 2020
Mad Sweeney (1 more)
Gaiman's writing and descriptions
No character development (2 more)
Dehumanizes women
The ending
The gods of the old world still exist in Neil Gaiman's 2001 novel "American Gods."
A science fiction/ fantasy story set in today's America, American Gods tries to answer the question of what happens when people stop believing in the past gods, and start worshiping new ones?
Shadow is our main character, who we meet while he's attempting to get released from prison after three years of incarceration - - - afterall, he has a job, wife and life waiting for him on the outside. And even though he's built up a strong exterior while in prison, everything comes crashing down after he receives news that his wife and best friend have died in a car accident.
Cue Wednesday, an old, odd man who gives Shadow a job after his release from prison - - - with strings attached: Shadow can't ask any questions, he must protect his employer at all costs, and if people need to be hurt, he must hurt them. Although Wednesday doesn't tell him exactly what is going on, Shadow agrees to his duties and begins a road trip with the eccentric old man, meeting an array of colorful characters along the way. But soon, Shadow begins to realize that his employer may be a mythical god in disguise, yet, oddly Shadow never really questions it or anything in the entire book for that matter.
The novel takes an odd turn early on when Shadow's dead wife, Laura, comes back to life in a zombified way. While Shadow is staying in a cheap hotel room, and Wednesday sharing a room with a young hotel employee in another, Shadow sees his wife in the clothing she was buried in, but he doesn't flinch - - - he carries a very calm conversation with dead Laura, he even goes down to the lobby to buy her a pack of cigarettes, and the next morning, he still doesn't seem bothered by it when he sees her muddy footprints on the floor. Wednesday tries to convince Shadow it was a dream, but makes snarky remarks that tells Shadow that even he knows it wasn't a dream. The two simply move on on their road trip, no questions asked.
But during this road trip, Shadow's suspicions are confirmed. He gets to see not only Wednesday, but two others in their true god-form, and afterwards, Wednesday confirms that he is indeed the Norse god, Odin.
Gaiman's take on mythological gods living in today's society is interesting, but disappointing. From recognizable gods to the forgotten ones, readers with a liking to history would probably enjoy this story most.
American Gods centers on the question of what happens to gods when they are no longer worshipped, and Gaiman merely focuses on male gods, while making all female characters (gods and humans) either prostitutes and/or sexual objects which is really off-putting for me as a female reader. And Gaiman's character development in the novel for gods and humans is nowhere to be seen thus lending very little plot development that is actually believable or enjoyable. I was unable to bring myself to care about our main character, Shadow, nor the plight with his zombie wife.And speaking of Laura, the disappointing character traits makes her not just unlikable, but also an unnecessary character overall.
I just can't recommend this book: the novel is good for the first 100 pages, but you could easily skip the next 450 pages that is just filler, and not miss much of the story. Gaiman also dehumanizes women, introduces characters in a way that would make them seem an important part of the story to only drop them out of it as quickly as they came in, and the ending is just a huge disappointment. All in all, Gaiman had a great idea, but the execution he used was poorly done - - - some parts even seem like Gaiman wrote them in a completely different state of mind, contradicting story lines and character traits altogether.
I did, however, have three favorite characters that weren't utilized enough for me to rate the story higher than I have: Mad Sweeney, Ibis and Jacquel. Mad Sweeney is a giant leprechaun that can pull gold coins out of the air; Ibis and Jacquel are Anubis and Jackel from Egyptian mythology, who run a funeral home in Cairo, Illinois today.
American Gods takes place only over a few months, which is surprising with how long the novel is. But the story is a buildup with no climax. Most characters come and go before readers can even decide if they like them or not,and that paired up with severe lack of character development leaves most of the main characters pretty forgettable. With this special edition containing 1200 more words, the story is still not worth it in the end. Gaiman is still a great writer, but this is not the book to recommend to anyone who wants to begin reading his work.
A science fiction/ fantasy story set in today's America, American Gods tries to answer the question of what happens when people stop believing in the past gods, and start worshiping new ones?
Shadow is our main character, who we meet while he's attempting to get released from prison after three years of incarceration - - - afterall, he has a job, wife and life waiting for him on the outside. And even though he's built up a strong exterior while in prison, everything comes crashing down after he receives news that his wife and best friend have died in a car accident.
Cue Wednesday, an old, odd man who gives Shadow a job after his release from prison - - - with strings attached: Shadow can't ask any questions, he must protect his employer at all costs, and if people need to be hurt, he must hurt them. Although Wednesday doesn't tell him exactly what is going on, Shadow agrees to his duties and begins a road trip with the eccentric old man, meeting an array of colorful characters along the way. But soon, Shadow begins to realize that his employer may be a mythical god in disguise, yet, oddly Shadow never really questions it or anything in the entire book for that matter.
The novel takes an odd turn early on when Shadow's dead wife, Laura, comes back to life in a zombified way. While Shadow is staying in a cheap hotel room, and Wednesday sharing a room with a young hotel employee in another, Shadow sees his wife in the clothing she was buried in, but he doesn't flinch - - - he carries a very calm conversation with dead Laura, he even goes down to the lobby to buy her a pack of cigarettes, and the next morning, he still doesn't seem bothered by it when he sees her muddy footprints on the floor. Wednesday tries to convince Shadow it was a dream, but makes snarky remarks that tells Shadow that even he knows it wasn't a dream. The two simply move on on their road trip, no questions asked.
But during this road trip, Shadow's suspicions are confirmed. He gets to see not only Wednesday, but two others in their true god-form, and afterwards, Wednesday confirms that he is indeed the Norse god, Odin.
Gaiman's take on mythological gods living in today's society is interesting, but disappointing. From recognizable gods to the forgotten ones, readers with a liking to history would probably enjoy this story most.
American Gods centers on the question of what happens to gods when they are no longer worshipped, and Gaiman merely focuses on male gods, while making all female characters (gods and humans) either prostitutes and/or sexual objects which is really off-putting for me as a female reader. And Gaiman's character development in the novel for gods and humans is nowhere to be seen thus lending very little plot development that is actually believable or enjoyable. I was unable to bring myself to care about our main character, Shadow, nor the plight with his zombie wife.And speaking of Laura, the disappointing character traits makes her not just unlikable, but also an unnecessary character overall.
I just can't recommend this book: the novel is good for the first 100 pages, but you could easily skip the next 450 pages that is just filler, and not miss much of the story. Gaiman also dehumanizes women, introduces characters in a way that would make them seem an important part of the story to only drop them out of it as quickly as they came in, and the ending is just a huge disappointment. All in all, Gaiman had a great idea, but the execution he used was poorly done - - - some parts even seem like Gaiman wrote them in a completely different state of mind, contradicting story lines and character traits altogether.
I did, however, have three favorite characters that weren't utilized enough for me to rate the story higher than I have: Mad Sweeney, Ibis and Jacquel. Mad Sweeney is a giant leprechaun that can pull gold coins out of the air; Ibis and Jacquel are Anubis and Jackel from Egyptian mythology, who run a funeral home in Cairo, Illinois today.
American Gods takes place only over a few months, which is surprising with how long the novel is. But the story is a buildup with no climax. Most characters come and go before readers can even decide if they like them or not,and that paired up with severe lack of character development leaves most of the main characters pretty forgettable. With this special edition containing 1200 more words, the story is still not worth it in the end. Gaiman is still a great writer, but this is not the book to recommend to anyone who wants to begin reading his work.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Lestranger than fiction.
I must be one of the last people to watch this in the cinema, thanks to an irritating bout of sickness and – well – frankly total bloody apathy! For me this is the franchise that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. (Well, “nobody” is probably overstating the case, since there is probably a bunch of Potterheads out there who are shouting at me right now). But judging from the opinion of my daughter-in-law, who could win “Mastermind” with her knowledge of the original Potter series as her specialist subject, I am certainly not alone in my lack of enthusiasm.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A plethora of clichés.
2017’s summer blockbusters fizzle to a halt with this formulaic action comedy. Ryan Reynolds (“Deadpool“) plays Michael Bryce: a cocksure “Triple A rated” bodyguard, always planning three steps ahead so that he can protect his clients without killing anyone in the process. With such arrogance, a fall is inevitable. On the other side of the legal scales is Darius Kincaid (Samuel L Jackson, “The Hateful Eight“), a contract killer who always gets his man. But the incarcerated Kincaid is offered a deal to release his equally incarcerated wife Sonia (Selma Hayek) in return for testifying against the fearsome Belarus president Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”), on trial for war crimes at The Hague. An Interpol team led by Bryce’s’s ex-squeeze Amelia Roussel (the striking Elodie Yung) now have to get Kincaid to Belgium unscathed with Dukhovich’s well-trained and well-armed thugs stopping at nothing to ensure he won’t be there to testify. Fate transpires that Bryce and Kincaid become an unlikely team in trying to bring Dukhovich to justice.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Just what the doctor ordered: a charming and thoughtful summer comedy.
Romance and comedy work together beautifully on film: love is innately ridiculous after all! But mix in a dramatic element – particularly a serious medical emergency – to a Rom Com and you walk a dangerous line between on the one hand letting the drama overwhelm the comedy ( “Well! I don’t feel like laughing now!”) and on the other hand diverging into shockingly mawkish finger-down-the-throat sentimentality. Fortunately the new comedy – “The Big Sick” – walks that line to perfection.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Manchester by the Sea (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow! I’d heard all about the Oscar hype surrounding this film but to be honest, while I thought I would be seeing a solid and well-made indie film, I went into it without great expectations of having an ‘enjoyable’ time: the trailer had “angst” written all over it. And – sure – it is emotional and harrowing in places. However, I was completely knocked out by the depth, the intelligence and the humour of this masterpiece.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Great visuals let down by meandering story
For those who are unaware, The Jast Jedi is the latest instalment in the core Star Wars series, and picks up from where Force Awakens left off. Rey (played by the decidedly average Daisy Ridley) is on an island with Mark Hamill (playing himself it seems as the mannerisms of the character bore no similarity to the one we saw in Episodes 4, 5 and 6). Chewbacca is also there, but you wouldn’t really tell aside from a few “comedy” moments with the creatures of the island shoehorned in to seemingly ignore the trauma of losing his blood-oath life companion in the last film (Han Solo….keep up people) and instead have him there to just growl at “The Most Annoying and Unnecessary Additions To Film Since Jar Jar”™ from time to time. Whilst there she seeks to recruit Mark to aid Carrie Fisher’s rebellion (again…something not quite right about the character, and another who seems to have gotten over a traumatic murder of a loved one….by a loved one…quite rapidly) and also train her up in the way of the Super-Jedi (seriously, the powers are far beyond anything we have come to know from Jedi before).
Meanwhile Finn wakes up so he can perform comedy pratfalls a lot, Poe has become a one-man-army who could possibly defeat the whole Empire if Carrie would just stop demoting him, and BB8 seems to have more internal mechanical abilities than Cyborg in the DC comics. Remember how much the paring of Rey and Finn worked in the previous film? Yeah, that’s not here. How about Poe and Finn…that bromance? Nope. Okay…what about….ah forget it.
So, on the flip-side Kylo Ren (Adam Driver who I genuinely don’t get the obsession some folk have with) is acting all emo at how Supreme Leader Snoke is seemingly in love with General Hux (Domhall Gleeson, who acts like he’s in a Carry On film). Snoke is no longer a huge hologram, but is now a physical entity in the film, played (rather excellently I must add) by CGI mo-cap legend Andy Serkis. Strange that a CGI character feels more real than any of the rest of the cast, but hey-ho. With his mighty fleet, Snoke leads the battle to wipe the last remnants of the Rebellion….
The film opens with a spectacular space battle, and certainly doesn’t skimp on set-pieces throughout, with land and space being covered in glory. But story wise there isn’t much going on, even though Rian Johnson clearly thinks there is. Not really a spoiler, but when the Rebel fleet are on the run, trying to stay out of reach of the First Order craft, you do wonder why a few of the first order fleet didn’t just jump to a short hyperdrive to pen the Rebels in, rather than just following behind like sheep. That minor niggle is the smallest of the film’s story problems.
The issue seems to be that many moments have been engineered purely to pull the rug out from under the fan-theorists, rather than being included to actually serve the story on offer. None of the reveals are particularly clever, and one moment in particular resonated in the same manner the “Martha!” moment did in Batman v Superman, so poorly presented that it was almost hilarious in the reveal. Shoehorn in a few cameos, and contrived scene set ups and the whole thing feels like it is trying to pack two films into one, and in order to do so decided to cut out all the bits that make sense to make room for ‘action…fights….explosions…and…..’
…PORGS! Damn those things to Hades! Absolutely unnecessary, irritating, and jarring enough when on screen to make you stop actually caring about the action going on. They are used at the most inopportune moments in a poor attempt to generate laughs! I’ve seen people argue that, “Star Wars is for kids, so of course some things would be childish!” A poor excuse, and it’s the same one George Lucas used for Jar Jar Binks. Still feel it’s a good excuse? They are a marketing ploy to sell cuddly merchandise, and they are awful!
It’s not entirely bad, though. As mentioned the action and effects work is stunning, and there are some marvellous visual feasts on offer. The score is, as expected from music maestro John Williams, enchanting, thrilling, and with plenty of echoes of previous themes morphed into the mix. It’s just that, overall, this feels less like part of the Star Wars series, and more like a fan-fiction. It’s a shame as Rian Johnson has a strong pedigree with Brick and Looper, and hearing he has been granted a new trilogy of films of his own design was exciting news. After this, however, all I can say is that I’m glad JJ Abrams is coming back for the final part – maybe the magic will return with him.
Better than the prequels, including Rogue One, but the weaker of the rest, The Last Jedi is overlong for no real reason, and not as sharp as it wants to be. All gloss and style, but with very little substance.
Meanwhile Finn wakes up so he can perform comedy pratfalls a lot, Poe has become a one-man-army who could possibly defeat the whole Empire if Carrie would just stop demoting him, and BB8 seems to have more internal mechanical abilities than Cyborg in the DC comics. Remember how much the paring of Rey and Finn worked in the previous film? Yeah, that’s not here. How about Poe and Finn…that bromance? Nope. Okay…what about….ah forget it.
So, on the flip-side Kylo Ren (Adam Driver who I genuinely don’t get the obsession some folk have with) is acting all emo at how Supreme Leader Snoke is seemingly in love with General Hux (Domhall Gleeson, who acts like he’s in a Carry On film). Snoke is no longer a huge hologram, but is now a physical entity in the film, played (rather excellently I must add) by CGI mo-cap legend Andy Serkis. Strange that a CGI character feels more real than any of the rest of the cast, but hey-ho. With his mighty fleet, Snoke leads the battle to wipe the last remnants of the Rebellion….
The film opens with a spectacular space battle, and certainly doesn’t skimp on set-pieces throughout, with land and space being covered in glory. But story wise there isn’t much going on, even though Rian Johnson clearly thinks there is. Not really a spoiler, but when the Rebel fleet are on the run, trying to stay out of reach of the First Order craft, you do wonder why a few of the first order fleet didn’t just jump to a short hyperdrive to pen the Rebels in, rather than just following behind like sheep. That minor niggle is the smallest of the film’s story problems.
The issue seems to be that many moments have been engineered purely to pull the rug out from under the fan-theorists, rather than being included to actually serve the story on offer. None of the reveals are particularly clever, and one moment in particular resonated in the same manner the “Martha!” moment did in Batman v Superman, so poorly presented that it was almost hilarious in the reveal. Shoehorn in a few cameos, and contrived scene set ups and the whole thing feels like it is trying to pack two films into one, and in order to do so decided to cut out all the bits that make sense to make room for ‘action…fights….explosions…and…..’
…PORGS! Damn those things to Hades! Absolutely unnecessary, irritating, and jarring enough when on screen to make you stop actually caring about the action going on. They are used at the most inopportune moments in a poor attempt to generate laughs! I’ve seen people argue that, “Star Wars is for kids, so of course some things would be childish!” A poor excuse, and it’s the same one George Lucas used for Jar Jar Binks. Still feel it’s a good excuse? They are a marketing ploy to sell cuddly merchandise, and they are awful!
It’s not entirely bad, though. As mentioned the action and effects work is stunning, and there are some marvellous visual feasts on offer. The score is, as expected from music maestro John Williams, enchanting, thrilling, and with plenty of echoes of previous themes morphed into the mix. It’s just that, overall, this feels less like part of the Star Wars series, and more like a fan-fiction. It’s a shame as Rian Johnson has a strong pedigree with Brick and Looper, and hearing he has been granted a new trilogy of films of his own design was exciting news. After this, however, all I can say is that I’m glad JJ Abrams is coming back for the final part – maybe the magic will return with him.
Better than the prequels, including Rogue One, but the weaker of the rest, The Last Jedi is overlong for no real reason, and not as sharp as it wants to be. All gloss and style, but with very little substance.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) in Movies
Jun 5, 2017
The creations of the pirate lore brought to life (3 more)
Original Cast return for the sequel
The addition of new incredible casting choices such as Bill Nighy
It maintains the franchises humour in new ways
Giving Pirate Lore a new image
Since I have reviewed the first, fourth and fifth films of this franchise, I thought it to be necessary for me to review the second and third installments as well.
Disney created something truly entertaining when they brought to us 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', and I know that i personally could not wait to see what journeys these characters would take us on. Jack Sparrow should probably be, and probably is, the highlight of all the films, because let's face it, Johnny Depp is ridiculously talented and this role helps us see him as something other than a Tim Burton creation. (Not saying I dislike Tim Burton or Johnny's roles in his films, but he is obviously in a lot of Tim Burton films, and he seems very typecasted in my opinion.)
But the later installments brought us talent that drives our attention away from the drunken idiot pirate captain, and draws us in by bringing to life the one name that all pirates fear; Davey Jones!
Davey Jones, to my knowledge, was never really given a true figure in the minds of pirates. He was always just a name to be feared, more so for the fact that the famous Davey Jones' Locker represented the bottom of the sea, and is used as a euphemism for drowning. When ships were wrecked in battle, or a sailor could not be retrieved after being thrown overboard, resulting in drowning, they would say that these sailors were now in Davey Jones' Locker. However, one thing that crossed my mind when I heard that they were bringing Davey Jones is as a villain (of sorts) to the film, was the bewilderment of who might play such a devilish character. Since there was never a figure before now, anyone could be cast. So the choices were almost endless. When the news came that Bill Nighy would be portraying him, I thought back to his role of Victor in the Underworld franchise, and I couldn't have chosen a better actor myself if I'm honest. His voice is different to many others and has a certain threatening spark to it, but one which didn't have to shout or change fully in tone to express anger or disgust. His voice, just is what it is and it's one that sticks in your head, and one you'll not forget anytime soon.
Two other famous lore based aspects, brought to life in this film are the Kraken, and of course the thing that the film is named after, the Dead Man's Chest. The Kraken would have been easier to come up with, because everyone knows the tale of the fearsome Kraken, the giant squid that can drag and entire ship down in one and make many a fierce pirate cower at the warning sign, known as the black spot, most often told to be placed upon the hand of the one it hunts.
However, I was really intrigued at the creators take on the famous Dead Man's Chest, and before I continue, here's a fun fact that'll give you a clue as to why it intrigues me so.
Fun Fact: Dead Man's Chest is actually an island called Dead Chest Island. The reason it is called Dead Chest Island, is because it is uninhabited, has no fresh water or trees and only sparse vegetation. However it is not entirely certain if this is the same island that the original Pirates of the golden age spoke of, but since there is no other island with a name that even closely resembles Dead Man's Chest, then this would seem to be the legendary island where it was told that Blackbeard used as punishment. Leaving his men stranded on the island with nothing but a cutlass and a bottle of rum each. When he returned after a month, there would be less men alive on the island than when he left. This inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's fictional sea shanty "15 Men on the dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum..".
So, the aspect that intrigues me is making this legend, and actual chest and connecting it to Davey Jones himself. In the film the chest contains the still beating heart of Davey Jones, and whoever pierced the heart becomes the next Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davey Jone's famous ship. The look of Davey Jones himself is incredible, and the choice of giving him a squid face really adds to the fantasy of these films, and actually makes him terrifying, though not as much so if you were to read this. "Squid for a head...sounds silly" some people have said, yet when I show them a picture, they respond with something like "That's actually terrifying but awesome"
Overall, this installment has great casting choices and great visual effects, as well as an entertaining take on Pirate lore and as always, it is brilliantly funny.
Disney created something truly entertaining when they brought to us 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', and I know that i personally could not wait to see what journeys these characters would take us on. Jack Sparrow should probably be, and probably is, the highlight of all the films, because let's face it, Johnny Depp is ridiculously talented and this role helps us see him as something other than a Tim Burton creation. (Not saying I dislike Tim Burton or Johnny's roles in his films, but he is obviously in a lot of Tim Burton films, and he seems very typecasted in my opinion.)
But the later installments brought us talent that drives our attention away from the drunken idiot pirate captain, and draws us in by bringing to life the one name that all pirates fear; Davey Jones!
Davey Jones, to my knowledge, was never really given a true figure in the minds of pirates. He was always just a name to be feared, more so for the fact that the famous Davey Jones' Locker represented the bottom of the sea, and is used as a euphemism for drowning. When ships were wrecked in battle, or a sailor could not be retrieved after being thrown overboard, resulting in drowning, they would say that these sailors were now in Davey Jones' Locker. However, one thing that crossed my mind when I heard that they were bringing Davey Jones is as a villain (of sorts) to the film, was the bewilderment of who might play such a devilish character. Since there was never a figure before now, anyone could be cast. So the choices were almost endless. When the news came that Bill Nighy would be portraying him, I thought back to his role of Victor in the Underworld franchise, and I couldn't have chosen a better actor myself if I'm honest. His voice is different to many others and has a certain threatening spark to it, but one which didn't have to shout or change fully in tone to express anger or disgust. His voice, just is what it is and it's one that sticks in your head, and one you'll not forget anytime soon.
Two other famous lore based aspects, brought to life in this film are the Kraken, and of course the thing that the film is named after, the Dead Man's Chest. The Kraken would have been easier to come up with, because everyone knows the tale of the fearsome Kraken, the giant squid that can drag and entire ship down in one and make many a fierce pirate cower at the warning sign, known as the black spot, most often told to be placed upon the hand of the one it hunts.
However, I was really intrigued at the creators take on the famous Dead Man's Chest, and before I continue, here's a fun fact that'll give you a clue as to why it intrigues me so.
Fun Fact: Dead Man's Chest is actually an island called Dead Chest Island. The reason it is called Dead Chest Island, is because it is uninhabited, has no fresh water or trees and only sparse vegetation. However it is not entirely certain if this is the same island that the original Pirates of the golden age spoke of, but since there is no other island with a name that even closely resembles Dead Man's Chest, then this would seem to be the legendary island where it was told that Blackbeard used as punishment. Leaving his men stranded on the island with nothing but a cutlass and a bottle of rum each. When he returned after a month, there would be less men alive on the island than when he left. This inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's fictional sea shanty "15 Men on the dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum..".
So, the aspect that intrigues me is making this legend, and actual chest and connecting it to Davey Jones himself. In the film the chest contains the still beating heart of Davey Jones, and whoever pierced the heart becomes the next Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davey Jone's famous ship. The look of Davey Jones himself is incredible, and the choice of giving him a squid face really adds to the fantasy of these films, and actually makes him terrifying, though not as much so if you were to read this. "Squid for a head...sounds silly" some people have said, yet when I show them a picture, they respond with something like "That's actually terrifying but awesome"
Overall, this installment has great casting choices and great visual effects, as well as an entertaining take on Pirate lore and as always, it is brilliantly funny.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Big Little Lies - Season 1 in TV
Feb 8, 2019 (Updated Feb 8, 2019)
Rich White People Problems: The Show
As more news of Season 2 of this show seeps out, I decided to eventually get around to catching the first season of this highly praised and seemingly universally lauded show. I went in expecting greatness from this thing after reading all of the glowing critic's reviews. I am also a huge fan of many of the cast members involved in this project, so knowing nothing about the plot or subject matter the show is based on, I went in blind; excited to see what this series had in store.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
Alice (12 KP) rated War Dogs: Ares Rising in Books
Jul 3, 2018
<i>I received a copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review</i>
War Dogs was so far out of my comfort zone I expected to not enjoy it. I’m pleased to say that I did enjoy this, not only was this a new style of writing for me, it was also a new author. At first I was a little sceptic of a book set on Mars (I haven’t read The Martian yet so the topic of being stuck on Mars is new!) this book was set in the perspective of Master Sergeant Michael Venn (Vinnie), a veteran Marine trained in off-world combat.
The book opens with Vinnie being back on Earth after a shit-storm of a Mars mission throws everything for a loop:
<blockquote>I’m trying to go home. As the poet said, if you don’t know where you are, you don’t know who you are. Home is where you go to get all that sorted out.</blockquote>
The chapters flick between Earth now and Mars then which is, in reality probably only about 2 weeks or so. Michael Venn has been on multiple tours of the Red Planet in his six years as a Skyrine and this is likely to be his last. There’s a good setting of Seattle in the beginning of the book where he’s just got out of the military base he touched down in a little while ago, it’s told from first person perspective and lots of memories are forth coming to the reader.
The basis of the Skyrine and their missions to Mars is from the Gurus – an alien race who made their presence known thirteen years ago when they touched down in the desert and spoke with some camel herders, it then progresses to the Gurus sneaking into the telecoms and satlinks, making a lot of money and then being “spotted” by some really clever computer folks. The Gurus then provide us humans with lots of technological advances for seemingly nothing, at least until they break the news that they have their own enemies – the Antagonists or Antags – and it’s now up the humans to go to war with the Antags.
After this little bit of background the story flicks to Mars with what has got to be one of my favourite lines in this book:
<blockquote>Physics is what kills you, but biology is what wants you dead.</blockquote>
Another favourite is:
<blockquote>…and share a silent fear that here, buckaroos, there are far too many cowboys and not nearly enough Indians.</blockquote>
The story then continues with Michael Venn’s tale of how their mission went tits up and describes various settings on Mars where they are thrown in the deep end and are at risk of dying. I didn’t quite understand why the book was called War Dogs until page 75 when it was explained to a point:
<blockquote>We’re all War Dogs, adopted by a very tall, strong ranch wife.</blockquote>
The descriptions of the characters and the settings in this book are wonderfully done and you actually feel like you’re there on Mars suffering along with Venn, Tak, Kazak and the rest of the Skyrines (a Skyrine is a Marine who is ‘sky-bound’ to Mars) while they wait out the possibility of death before Teal the ranch wife from the above quote comes to their rescue and then while they discover that their mission was compromised from the very beginning long before they actually launched.
Throughout the book there is a character called Alice who comes to Seattle on behalf of Joe (another Skyrine) who is there to help Michael come to terms with being back on Earth after the blow out of Mars. She’s a sort of psychotherapist I suppose who is there to listen to Michael’s story of what happened on Mars (which is basically how the book is written, the storytelling of what happened on Mars but through visions or flashbacks) and she eventually takes him to see Joe only they get caught by the military police. Michael ends up being taken “prisoner” as a fugitive.
This book was – though short – incredibly well written and I definitely want to read the next one which is lucky as I have that as well. This one book has made me want to read more of Greg Bear’s work and I’m on the hunt for the next series to read. As mentioned before the characters were brilliant although there is lots of unique jargon that both does and doesn’t make sense (SNKRAZ for one), the Muskie lingo (Teal’s people) is a little hard going to understand.
The chapter switches between past and present, with the past represented as memories or hallucinations/visions; ultimately War Dogs is a humorous but dramatic tale of Mars from the POV of a Marine that can’t swear. Michael Venn is a great main character with plenty of well presented secondary characters and a good ecclectic mix of plots.
I will leave you with a parting quote:
<blockquote>Ant farm stories are just like life. We have no idea why we’re here, what we’re doing alive, or even where we are, but here we are, doing our best to make do.</blockquote>
War Dogs was so far out of my comfort zone I expected to not enjoy it. I’m pleased to say that I did enjoy this, not only was this a new style of writing for me, it was also a new author. At first I was a little sceptic of a book set on Mars (I haven’t read The Martian yet so the topic of being stuck on Mars is new!) this book was set in the perspective of Master Sergeant Michael Venn (Vinnie), a veteran Marine trained in off-world combat.
The book opens with Vinnie being back on Earth after a shit-storm of a Mars mission throws everything for a loop:
<blockquote>I’m trying to go home. As the poet said, if you don’t know where you are, you don’t know who you are. Home is where you go to get all that sorted out.</blockquote>
The chapters flick between Earth now and Mars then which is, in reality probably only about 2 weeks or so. Michael Venn has been on multiple tours of the Red Planet in his six years as a Skyrine and this is likely to be his last. There’s a good setting of Seattle in the beginning of the book where he’s just got out of the military base he touched down in a little while ago, it’s told from first person perspective and lots of memories are forth coming to the reader.
The basis of the Skyrine and their missions to Mars is from the Gurus – an alien race who made their presence known thirteen years ago when they touched down in the desert and spoke with some camel herders, it then progresses to the Gurus sneaking into the telecoms and satlinks, making a lot of money and then being “spotted” by some really clever computer folks. The Gurus then provide us humans with lots of technological advances for seemingly nothing, at least until they break the news that they have their own enemies – the Antagonists or Antags – and it’s now up the humans to go to war with the Antags.
After this little bit of background the story flicks to Mars with what has got to be one of my favourite lines in this book:
<blockquote>Physics is what kills you, but biology is what wants you dead.</blockquote>
Another favourite is:
<blockquote>…and share a silent fear that here, buckaroos, there are far too many cowboys and not nearly enough Indians.</blockquote>
The story then continues with Michael Venn’s tale of how their mission went tits up and describes various settings on Mars where they are thrown in the deep end and are at risk of dying. I didn’t quite understand why the book was called War Dogs until page 75 when it was explained to a point:
<blockquote>We’re all War Dogs, adopted by a very tall, strong ranch wife.</blockquote>
The descriptions of the characters and the settings in this book are wonderfully done and you actually feel like you’re there on Mars suffering along with Venn, Tak, Kazak and the rest of the Skyrines (a Skyrine is a Marine who is ‘sky-bound’ to Mars) while they wait out the possibility of death before Teal the ranch wife from the above quote comes to their rescue and then while they discover that their mission was compromised from the very beginning long before they actually launched.
Throughout the book there is a character called Alice who comes to Seattle on behalf of Joe (another Skyrine) who is there to help Michael come to terms with being back on Earth after the blow out of Mars. She’s a sort of psychotherapist I suppose who is there to listen to Michael’s story of what happened on Mars (which is basically how the book is written, the storytelling of what happened on Mars but through visions or flashbacks) and she eventually takes him to see Joe only they get caught by the military police. Michael ends up being taken “prisoner” as a fugitive.
This book was – though short – incredibly well written and I definitely want to read the next one which is lucky as I have that as well. This one book has made me want to read more of Greg Bear’s work and I’m on the hunt for the next series to read. As mentioned before the characters were brilliant although there is lots of unique jargon that both does and doesn’t make sense (SNKRAZ for one), the Muskie lingo (Teal’s people) is a little hard going to understand.
The chapter switches between past and present, with the past represented as memories or hallucinations/visions; ultimately War Dogs is a humorous but dramatic tale of Mars from the POV of a Marine that can’t swear. Michael Venn is a great main character with plenty of well presented secondary characters and a good ecclectic mix of plots.
I will leave you with a parting quote:
<blockquote>Ant farm stories are just like life. We have no idea why we’re here, what we’re doing alive, or even where we are, but here we are, doing our best to make do.</blockquote>