Search
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Beauvallet in Books
Apr 27, 2018
When Dona Dominica sets sail on the Santa Maria, she wonders if she will ever meet the infamous El Beauvallet, the English pirate with a reputation of being able to do anything because of witchcraft. But she does not expect her ship to be taken by him, Nor does she expect to be kidnapped by him and taken abord his ship the Venture.
Sir Nicholas Beauvallet captures Dominica and her father and proclaims that he will take them home to Spain, as Dominica has demanded. But falling head over heels in love with her was never part of his plan. In order to please her, he agrees to returning her to her country, but also announces that he will wed her before the year is up. How is Sir Nicholas supposed to come back to Spain to claim fair lady as his bride if all of Spain wants his head? The answer is easily—because Beauvallet can do anything, of course.
This was such a sweet story! I cannot think of words enough to describe how much I adored Beauvallet. The romance was fast-paced, the adventure was exciting, and the language was eloquent. I absolutely loved it. It was a pretty fast read and I read it in a few days. Georgette has many little surprises spread all through the story and tells amazing creative adventures of Beauvallet’s wits, fights, and escapes. It was a perfect blend of a sweeping romance and a gripping adventure.
The story is told in third-person omniscient, so you don’t always have all the details. It was a little hard to get inside the character’s heads at first, but once I learned who they were It was very easy to relate to them.
A wonderful thing about Beauvallet is that when El Beauvallet falls in love with Dominica, he does not claim her as his “love” or as his “mistress” or, in our culture, his “girlfriend,” he claims her as his bride. Which is really the most romantic aspect of it all.
The end was so sweet I won’t tell what happened but rest assured it was wonderful.
I loved this story so much! I have already run out to pick up more books by Georgette Heyer, I am officially a new fan! I cannot wait to read other books by her.
Content: Gloriously clean: no language, no sex.
Recommendation: Boys and girls (it’s such an adventure that boys would like it too!) Ages 13-Adult. It’s not aimed specifically to teens or young people, and would be perfect for an adult as well.
(Beauvallet was first published first in 1929. Reprint copyright to Sourcebooks: 2010)
~Haleyknitz
Sir Nicholas Beauvallet captures Dominica and her father and proclaims that he will take them home to Spain, as Dominica has demanded. But falling head over heels in love with her was never part of his plan. In order to please her, he agrees to returning her to her country, but also announces that he will wed her before the year is up. How is Sir Nicholas supposed to come back to Spain to claim fair lady as his bride if all of Spain wants his head? The answer is easily—because Beauvallet can do anything, of course.
This was such a sweet story! I cannot think of words enough to describe how much I adored Beauvallet. The romance was fast-paced, the adventure was exciting, and the language was eloquent. I absolutely loved it. It was a pretty fast read and I read it in a few days. Georgette has many little surprises spread all through the story and tells amazing creative adventures of Beauvallet’s wits, fights, and escapes. It was a perfect blend of a sweeping romance and a gripping adventure.
The story is told in third-person omniscient, so you don’t always have all the details. It was a little hard to get inside the character’s heads at first, but once I learned who they were It was very easy to relate to them.
A wonderful thing about Beauvallet is that when El Beauvallet falls in love with Dominica, he does not claim her as his “love” or as his “mistress” or, in our culture, his “girlfriend,” he claims her as his bride. Which is really the most romantic aspect of it all.
The end was so sweet I won’t tell what happened but rest assured it was wonderful.
I loved this story so much! I have already run out to pick up more books by Georgette Heyer, I am officially a new fan! I cannot wait to read other books by her.
Content: Gloriously clean: no language, no sex.
Recommendation: Boys and girls (it’s such an adventure that boys would like it too!) Ages 13-Adult. It’s not aimed specifically to teens or young people, and would be perfect for an adult as well.
(Beauvallet was first published first in 1929. Reprint copyright to Sourcebooks: 2010)
~Haleyknitz
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) in Movies
Aug 5, 2018
Hilarious (4 more)
Some great references
Surprise comedic cameo
Nice nods to the tv show
Credits scene
I wasn't sure what was even happening sometimes (1 more)
Seems a little extreme in places.
What did I just watch?
Okay so I haven't reviewed the tv show cos I haven't watched it in a while but I do love 'Teen Titans Go!' and many people ask me why?
Yes I was a fan of the original animated series and I'm a fan of Young Justice and they're both clearly superior animated shows, but it's nice to see something fun and childish starting your favourite characters now and then and the creators of TTG! Are DC fans as well so there's always some insanely great nods to other DC content from comics, to tv shows to Movies and more. So what's not to love?
This movie was hilarious because it's just so insane that you just have to think that the creators were high as hell when making this film. But it's easy to understand for children and has many great references to DC for the adult fans in the audience. A great soundtrack of silly songs and a great voice cast for the characters such as Will Arnett as Deathstroke and Nicholas Cage as Superman (an obvious reference to the Tim Burton Superman film that never got made that would have started Nicholas Cage as the Man of Steel himself). The humour was nothing really new compared to the tv show but they expanded upon it and seemed to drag some of the jokes out longer with some great comedic timing and a sense of "what the hell is going on!?"
Issues I had with the film was that in some parts it seemed to try a little too hard to make you laugh and it didn't always work. They tried to put in some serious messages as they do in the show but this seemed to slow down the pace all of a sudden so it wasn't smooth with the flow of the film and it just felt like it came to a sudden halt on the shenanigans and humour of the film.
The plot was pretty much obvious from the get go, but that's probably just the view as an adult. I'm sure to kids it might seem like a real movie.
But back to the good points. There was some great references to none DC content, such as the Stan Lee cameo, Starfire pointing at the Warner Brothers water tower and stating "That's where the animaniacs live" and even a reference to the Lion King which was brilliant.
Overall this was a really enjoyable movie with some flaws but I think the overall impression outweighs them, and the soundtrack is incredible ?
Yes I was a fan of the original animated series and I'm a fan of Young Justice and they're both clearly superior animated shows, but it's nice to see something fun and childish starting your favourite characters now and then and the creators of TTG! Are DC fans as well so there's always some insanely great nods to other DC content from comics, to tv shows to Movies and more. So what's not to love?
This movie was hilarious because it's just so insane that you just have to think that the creators were high as hell when making this film. But it's easy to understand for children and has many great references to DC for the adult fans in the audience. A great soundtrack of silly songs and a great voice cast for the characters such as Will Arnett as Deathstroke and Nicholas Cage as Superman (an obvious reference to the Tim Burton Superman film that never got made that would have started Nicholas Cage as the Man of Steel himself). The humour was nothing really new compared to the tv show but they expanded upon it and seemed to drag some of the jokes out longer with some great comedic timing and a sense of "what the hell is going on!?"
Issues I had with the film was that in some parts it seemed to try a little too hard to make you laugh and it didn't always work. They tried to put in some serious messages as they do in the show but this seemed to slow down the pace all of a sudden so it wasn't smooth with the flow of the film and it just felt like it came to a sudden halt on the shenanigans and humour of the film.
The plot was pretty much obvious from the get go, but that's probably just the view as an adult. I'm sure to kids it might seem like a real movie.
But back to the good points. There was some great references to none DC content, such as the Stan Lee cameo, Starfire pointing at the Warner Brothers water tower and stating "That's where the animaniacs live" and even a reference to the Lion King which was brilliant.
Overall this was a really enjoyable movie with some flaws but I think the overall impression outweighs them, and the soundtrack is incredible ?
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
An Unexpectedly Dull Journey
Tolkien is a 2019 biographical/drama movie directed by Dome Karukoski and written by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford. It's produced by Fox Searchlight Pictures and Chernin Entertainment and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Nicholas Hoult, Lily Collins, Colm Meaney, and Derek Jacobi.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A United Kingdom (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“In to Africa”.
I managed to miss this film when it was first shown at the end of 2016. And what a shame as it would have UNDOUBTEDLY made my “Films of the Year” list.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
Global Technology: Changes and Implications: Summary of a Forum
National Academy of Engineering and Steve Olson
Book
Engineers know what they mean by the word technology. They mean the things engineers conceive,...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In what can only be described as a failed attempt at a sequel, Nicholas Cage reprises his role as Johnny Blaze, and Blaze’s alter ego Ghost Rider.
In this follow-up chapter to the 2007 film that first brought Marvel’s Ghost Rider to the big screen, Cage’s character has left the States to run from the demon inside him. His attempts to control the Rider work best when he is far from people, but his plans are derailed upon the entrance of a young boy and his attractive mother. The boy is the object of desire for Mephistopheles (the demon who turned Blaze into the Rider). The film takes you on a wild ride while Ghost Rider attempts to prevent the devil from getting his claws on the boy.
Lets cut right to the chase: this is, bar-none, one of the worst films I’ve seen in at least a decade. It’s right up there with D-Wars. While the first film had decent acting (minus Cage), a well-thought-out script, and special effects that made sense, the sequel is a complete failure even when compared to its predecessor.
The complete lack of a coherent script, the terrible acting, and the nonsensical actions of the Rider (not to mention the extremely cheesy dialog) make it clear that this film is an extremely poor attempt by Hollywood to capitalize on the recent success of other Marvel/DC titles. Unfortunately, this movie was cobbled together with one liners and special effects that weren’t convincing enough to pass the test.
Being a long time Marvel/DC comic fan, I always approach these films with low expectations, so I can be surprised when they’re done well — and at the very least, enjoy it. Despite this, I still feel like the hour and twenty minutes of my life spent watching Ghost Rider is time I can’t have back.
The only moment of hope this film had was Christopher Lambert as the tattooed monk.
I encourage all of you who wish to see it, even after reading this review, to wait until it’s available for cheap home viewing.
In this follow-up chapter to the 2007 film that first brought Marvel’s Ghost Rider to the big screen, Cage’s character has left the States to run from the demon inside him. His attempts to control the Rider work best when he is far from people, but his plans are derailed upon the entrance of a young boy and his attractive mother. The boy is the object of desire for Mephistopheles (the demon who turned Blaze into the Rider). The film takes you on a wild ride while Ghost Rider attempts to prevent the devil from getting his claws on the boy.
Lets cut right to the chase: this is, bar-none, one of the worst films I’ve seen in at least a decade. It’s right up there with D-Wars. While the first film had decent acting (minus Cage), a well-thought-out script, and special effects that made sense, the sequel is a complete failure even when compared to its predecessor.
The complete lack of a coherent script, the terrible acting, and the nonsensical actions of the Rider (not to mention the extremely cheesy dialog) make it clear that this film is an extremely poor attempt by Hollywood to capitalize on the recent success of other Marvel/DC titles. Unfortunately, this movie was cobbled together with one liners and special effects that weren’t convincing enough to pass the test.
Being a long time Marvel/DC comic fan, I always approach these films with low expectations, so I can be surprised when they’re done well — and at the very least, enjoy it. Despite this, I still feel like the hour and twenty minutes of my life spent watching Ghost Rider is time I can’t have back.
The only moment of hope this film had was Christopher Lambert as the tattooed monk.
I encourage all of you who wish to see it, even after reading this review, to wait until it’s available for cheap home viewing.
Wade-O Radio Weekly Podcast
Podcast
The Wade-O Radio Show is an international, terrestrial, Internet radio show, and podcast that...
BC
Beethoven's Cello: Five Revolutionary Sonatas and Their World
Marc D. Moskovitz and R. Larry Todd
Book
In 1796 the young Beethoven presented his first two cello sonatas at the court of Frederick William...
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Bitter Memory in Books
Feb 4, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Bitter Memory by Sion Nicholas is an interesting book focused on a distant planet where scientist are trying to save the Earth. This read is interesting as much as it is a warning to us about what could happen if we don’t take care of the Earth.
Scarlett Robins meets her husband while in college studying ways to help end the hunger riots taking place all across the globe. Caleb, her husband, was a guest lecturer for Scarlett’s class and her professor introduced them thinking they would find each other's ideas interesting. During one of their first conversations, the couple talk about grouping crops for research on a distant planet where they wouldn’t affect the Earth’s ecosystem.
Fast forward a few years later to find Scarlett and Caleb as part of a five-person team on Pygmalion 6, a distant planet, to work on solving the food shortage. Upon arrival Scarlett boots up the computer systems and initializes all security programs, not realizing that she just made a deadly mistake. It takes years before Scarlett and the rest of the team discover just what actions she set in place that fateful first day. Too bad it may already be too late to save anyone from the greedy company they all work for.
I really enjoyed the twist towards the end of the book. The book was only mildly predictable compared to others of a similar genera, which was nice. Overall the plot was well thought out and well written. There was a fair amount of technical talk especially about the bees and their relationship to the plants. While I understand its importance to the background of the story I felt like it went into unnecessary detail.
Young adults and adults alike will enjoy this book. There was very little to no inappropriate scenes in this book, plus it only hints at any kind of adult content. That being said high school and older should be alright to read this and most middle school students should be able to handle it with no problem. I rate this book a 3 out of 4. The over detailed technical stuff seemed to take something away from the overall story. Almost as if the book was supposed to be much more in-depth and bigger than what it was. It is because of this that I decided not to give the book a perfect score. Other than that one flaw the book was amazing.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/bitter-memory
Scarlett Robins meets her husband while in college studying ways to help end the hunger riots taking place all across the globe. Caleb, her husband, was a guest lecturer for Scarlett’s class and her professor introduced them thinking they would find each other's ideas interesting. During one of their first conversations, the couple talk about grouping crops for research on a distant planet where they wouldn’t affect the Earth’s ecosystem.
Fast forward a few years later to find Scarlett and Caleb as part of a five-person team on Pygmalion 6, a distant planet, to work on solving the food shortage. Upon arrival Scarlett boots up the computer systems and initializes all security programs, not realizing that she just made a deadly mistake. It takes years before Scarlett and the rest of the team discover just what actions she set in place that fateful first day. Too bad it may already be too late to save anyone from the greedy company they all work for.
I really enjoyed the twist towards the end of the book. The book was only mildly predictable compared to others of a similar genera, which was nice. Overall the plot was well thought out and well written. There was a fair amount of technical talk especially about the bees and their relationship to the plants. While I understand its importance to the background of the story I felt like it went into unnecessary detail.
Young adults and adults alike will enjoy this book. There was very little to no inappropriate scenes in this book, plus it only hints at any kind of adult content. That being said high school and older should be alright to read this and most middle school students should be able to handle it with no problem. I rate this book a 3 out of 4. The over detailed technical stuff seemed to take something away from the overall story. Almost as if the book was supposed to be much more in-depth and bigger than what it was. It is because of this that I decided not to give the book a perfect score. Other than that one flaw the book was amazing.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/bitter-memory