Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated A Kiss of Madness in Books
Jan 14, 2019
Too much smut (3 more)
Unbelievable plot
Underdeveloped and unlikable characters
Book is confused about the plot
Reads More Like a Rough Draft
I love reading books about mental illness, and even more so if they take place inside an asylum. When I saw A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones, it seemed like the perfect read for me. Unfortunately, I was left very disappointed.
The synopsis for A Kiss of Madness sounded very interesting. It could have been a very interesting book except there's too much going on in the story. Lydia gets sent to Brocker's Center for the Criminally Insane after having a vision and throwing a chair through a window as well as attacking an innocent bystander. She could have chose jail time or to voluntarily commit herself to Brocker's. She chose the latter. While there, she gets feelings about people and doesn't feel like she belongs. She meets three guys who are patients with their own issues. However, she ends up thinking they're hot, and they also think she's hot. The guys all agree to be her boyfriends and end up following her everywhere. When one of the other female patients goes missing, Lydia tries to uncover what really happened putting herself in grave danger. I was confused if A Kiss of Madness was trying to be more of a romance novel, a mystery/crime novel, or a paranormal novel. I got the insane asylum vibe for a few chapters, but soon this book lost its whole mental illness vibe. I felt like the insane asylum setting was just thrown in there to make this book sound more interesting than it actually was. It soon turned more into an erotic novel which made me like the book even less. There was just too much pointless fairly graphic sex for my liking. I feel like all the fairly graphic sex and sexual references really took away from the story. I also didn't like the ending. It just felt too rushed. Actually, the whole story just felt really rushed. I also didn't understand how one character who had a violent past could have such a great job. I won't go into further details because it's a spoiler.
I started out liking Lydia and was on her side for the first few chapters or so. However, I found myself losing the connection I felt with her the more I read. She just came across as being very irresponsible and immature. I didn't really care for Pierce, Emmett, or Mason/Jason either. None of the characters in A Kiss of Madness were fleshed out enough to be likable or believable.
The pacing starts out great in A Kiss of Madness. However, it soon slows down once the sex scenes come into play. Then it slows down and becomes more of a smut novel instead of a decent read. Luckily this is a short read or I would have given up on it when I got to the sex parts.
Trigger warnings for A Kiss of Madness include violence, murder, mental illness, attempted sexual assault, fairly graphic sex scenes, sexual references, and profanities.
Overall, A Kiss of Madness started out great. However, it soon went downhill close to halfway through the book. I feel like this book feels more like a rough draft on what could be a decent read. It just needs a lot more work to be good. Get rid of a lot of the pointless sex scenes and references, bulk up the story and characters a bit, decide on what angle to go with, and give this book some guts! At this time, I would not recommend A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones.
The synopsis for A Kiss of Madness sounded very interesting. It could have been a very interesting book except there's too much going on in the story. Lydia gets sent to Brocker's Center for the Criminally Insane after having a vision and throwing a chair through a window as well as attacking an innocent bystander. She could have chose jail time or to voluntarily commit herself to Brocker's. She chose the latter. While there, she gets feelings about people and doesn't feel like she belongs. She meets three guys who are patients with their own issues. However, she ends up thinking they're hot, and they also think she's hot. The guys all agree to be her boyfriends and end up following her everywhere. When one of the other female patients goes missing, Lydia tries to uncover what really happened putting herself in grave danger. I was confused if A Kiss of Madness was trying to be more of a romance novel, a mystery/crime novel, or a paranormal novel. I got the insane asylum vibe for a few chapters, but soon this book lost its whole mental illness vibe. I felt like the insane asylum setting was just thrown in there to make this book sound more interesting than it actually was. It soon turned more into an erotic novel which made me like the book even less. There was just too much pointless fairly graphic sex for my liking. I feel like all the fairly graphic sex and sexual references really took away from the story. I also didn't like the ending. It just felt too rushed. Actually, the whole story just felt really rushed. I also didn't understand how one character who had a violent past could have such a great job. I won't go into further details because it's a spoiler.
I started out liking Lydia and was on her side for the first few chapters or so. However, I found myself losing the connection I felt with her the more I read. She just came across as being very irresponsible and immature. I didn't really care for Pierce, Emmett, or Mason/Jason either. None of the characters in A Kiss of Madness were fleshed out enough to be likable or believable.
The pacing starts out great in A Kiss of Madness. However, it soon slows down once the sex scenes come into play. Then it slows down and becomes more of a smut novel instead of a decent read. Luckily this is a short read or I would have given up on it when I got to the sex parts.
Trigger warnings for A Kiss of Madness include violence, murder, mental illness, attempted sexual assault, fairly graphic sex scenes, sexual references, and profanities.
Overall, A Kiss of Madness started out great. However, it soon went downhill close to halfway through the book. I feel like this book feels more like a rough draft on what could be a decent read. It just needs a lot more work to be good. Get rid of a lot of the pointless sex scenes and references, bulk up the story and characters a bit, decide on what angle to go with, and give this book some guts! At this time, I would not recommend A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Thor: The Dark World starts as Thor (Hemsworth) must restore the power in Asgard after Loki’s (Hiddleston) actions, this has made him in the position he should be, waiting to take over his father Odin’s (Hopkins) role. Meanwhile on Earth Jane (Portman) is trying to move with her life, but in London she discovers an unusual series of events which ends up taking her to Elf world.
When Jane becomes cursed, Thor takes her to Asgard to find a cure, which gives Malekith (Eccleston) a chance to lead his army back into combat so he can return the universe back to darkness. Thor must turn to Loki t help him defeat Malekith and save the universe.
Thoughts on Thor: The Dark World
Characters – Thor is once again preparing to take his throne in Asgard, he has restored faith in the nine realms, but he still misses Jane. When she becomes cursed, he returns to Earth to save her, which only brings back an ancient enemy to the Asgardians in the Dark Elves, he must disobey his father once again to end the threat and save the woman he loves. Jane is trying to get on with her life now, her research has taken her to London where she is trying to get over Thor, her investigation sees her cursed and taken to Asgard to learn about Thor’s home world. Loki is locked up for his actions, after his mother is murdered, Thor turns to him for help to get vengeance. Malekith is the leader of the Dark Elves, he has waited for his chance to bring the universe into darkness once again, killing Frigga the mother of Thor.
Performances – Chris Hemsworth continues to make Thor one of the most entertaining character in the universe. Natalie Portman was known to not be interested in being in the film, it does show in her performance which does disappoint. Tom Hiddleston brings another dimension to his character here which is only going to make him a more loved character. Christopher Eccleston does give us a basic villain, one that is only after power and is mostly under make up, making his performance harder to judge.
Story – The story here follows Thor on his latest adventure, one where he must face an ancient enemy who wants to put the universe into darkness, while finally returning to Jane who has become cursed by the Dark Elves magic. This is another sequel that does address the previous films in the franchise by showing the hints the Thor and Loki could still rebuild their bond even after what Loki has done, we address forbidden relationships between Thor and Jane, have a villain that is obsessed with power, though isn’t the most three-dimensional and see Thor needing to learn more about his responsibilities as a potential king. This is everything you would expect a sequel to be in this universe.
Action/Fantasy – The action involved in this film is mostly big CGI chases sequences between spacecrafts, we do get Thor doing the hammer routine which works well enough for the film. the fantasy side of the film continues to build on the idea that the worlds above have been fighting longer than people could imagine with fresh enemies waiting in the shadows.
Settings – The film uses Asgard, the home world of the Dark Elves and London as the main settings, each has its own action sequences which also shows what Thor is fighting for.
Special Effects – The effects are not as strong as previous films, but we do get some very impressive scenes none the less, the certain moments of weakness do hold the marks up though,
Scene of the Movie – London battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The villain isn’t as interesting as previous ones.
Final Thoughts – This is still an entertaining sequel, it might not be as strong as some of the previous films, but it entertains throughout.
Overall: Fantasy Filled Sequel.
When Jane becomes cursed, Thor takes her to Asgard to find a cure, which gives Malekith (Eccleston) a chance to lead his army back into combat so he can return the universe back to darkness. Thor must turn to Loki t help him defeat Malekith and save the universe.
Thoughts on Thor: The Dark World
Characters – Thor is once again preparing to take his throne in Asgard, he has restored faith in the nine realms, but he still misses Jane. When she becomes cursed, he returns to Earth to save her, which only brings back an ancient enemy to the Asgardians in the Dark Elves, he must disobey his father once again to end the threat and save the woman he loves. Jane is trying to get on with her life now, her research has taken her to London where she is trying to get over Thor, her investigation sees her cursed and taken to Asgard to learn about Thor’s home world. Loki is locked up for his actions, after his mother is murdered, Thor turns to him for help to get vengeance. Malekith is the leader of the Dark Elves, he has waited for his chance to bring the universe into darkness once again, killing Frigga the mother of Thor.
Performances – Chris Hemsworth continues to make Thor one of the most entertaining character in the universe. Natalie Portman was known to not be interested in being in the film, it does show in her performance which does disappoint. Tom Hiddleston brings another dimension to his character here which is only going to make him a more loved character. Christopher Eccleston does give us a basic villain, one that is only after power and is mostly under make up, making his performance harder to judge.
Story – The story here follows Thor on his latest adventure, one where he must face an ancient enemy who wants to put the universe into darkness, while finally returning to Jane who has become cursed by the Dark Elves magic. This is another sequel that does address the previous films in the franchise by showing the hints the Thor and Loki could still rebuild their bond even after what Loki has done, we address forbidden relationships between Thor and Jane, have a villain that is obsessed with power, though isn’t the most three-dimensional and see Thor needing to learn more about his responsibilities as a potential king. This is everything you would expect a sequel to be in this universe.
Action/Fantasy – The action involved in this film is mostly big CGI chases sequences between spacecrafts, we do get Thor doing the hammer routine which works well enough for the film. the fantasy side of the film continues to build on the idea that the worlds above have been fighting longer than people could imagine with fresh enemies waiting in the shadows.
Settings – The film uses Asgard, the home world of the Dark Elves and London as the main settings, each has its own action sequences which also shows what Thor is fighting for.
Special Effects – The effects are not as strong as previous films, but we do get some very impressive scenes none the less, the certain moments of weakness do hold the marks up though,
Scene of the Movie – London battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The villain isn’t as interesting as previous ones.
Final Thoughts – This is still an entertaining sequel, it might not be as strong as some of the previous films, but it entertains throughout.
Overall: Fantasy Filled Sequel.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Lee (2222 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019 (Updated Jan 24, 2019)
A very funny, heartwarming drama about adoption
On paper, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Instant Family is going to be just like so many other movies you've seen over the years. A couple without children of their own decides to adopt and end up with three troubled siblings of varying ages. And when you read that it's from director/co-writer Sean Anders, along with Mark Wahlberg, who worked together on both of the 'Daddy's Home' movies, you'll think you've got a pretty good idea of the tone and direction this movie is going to follow. Luckily though, while there are some genuinely very funny moments in this movie, it also manages to successfully blend it with some serious human drama and emotion and a fantastic set of characters.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
If they were to give it a go, this movie should justifiably be Rian's redemption from the harshest of his previous critics. For this is a really entertaining film. I found myself smiling with glee through a sizable proportion of the running time.
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Oath of Servitude (The Punishment Sequence, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Author in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
First off, I would like to thank the author for giving me a copy of the book! (That doesn't bias my review by all means.) I really enjoyed it. I also loved the cover. Hopefully, she appears in future covers. :)
I've always admired authors who are able to bounce from one character's POV to another one. I find that hard to do myself and I guess I myself fail at that in a way when I was on MissLiterati writing Supernaturals and other stories of randomisimo, which I now stopped writing about. :p
I wonder what my life would be like if I were only a foot tall (or less). Tiny notebooks and tiny pens... tiny everything! Actually, that reminds me of a crafting book I was so immersed in when I was in elementary school. The tiny cupcakes were adorable. Too bad I fail to be a cook (I broke the stove and was never trusted to cook again. Major oops). It was also disappointing that I never had enough materials to make them. It was fun reading/browsing through that crafting book. Connection being made (Old habits haunt later apparently), I'm going back to the right trail (kinda).
The book reminds me of a series I enjoy reading: The Iron Fey. Cailin reminds me of a certain ice dude of which I shall keep anonymous that is distant and doesn't give off much info until later. Or is that a bit of Teague as well? Anyhoo, Teague reminds me of a certain prankster and summer chick with personalities mixed together. Minus being blind and an alcoholic (and possibly MANY others). It also reminded me of The Iron Fey because of the unnatural relationship between 2 different types of fey species, or in this case, a pixi and a human. (Curiosity spikes up the question: What will happen if the Portune finds out about their relationship?)
I especially loved Cailin's and Teague's wits when they're around each other. Their conversations had a mix of humor and seriousness rolled with awesomous. I also enjoyed the drama within the pixi clans outside of Cailin's bubble of punishment. The Portune reminds me of another book with a faction, in this case clan, that are "greedy" for power, although I would like them better if you compare the two. Though they're a bit greedy for power and have a zillion threats if you break a rule, all they want is to keep the pixi's in line and not expose their existence to humans. It's all about safety for the pixi's. ^_^ It does makes sense though. I wouldn't want to be exposed to giant-like beings if I were them.
What really kept me from giving it full a perfect score were the grammatical and spelling errors, but there were none that really distracted me from the smooth and steady flow of the words throughout the story. I also felt there was a bit of a rush in the romance between Teague and Cailin. :/ Though not your typical YA Paranormal Romance story, I recommend the book to those who enjoy reading about faeries and looking for something that's not typical.
And as I may sometimes say about the endings of stories....
Ohhhh, the AGONY of the Cliff-Hanger(s)!
(I'm not kidding. I wonder how cliffs I'm really hanging on to now in total of all books. No doubt: MANY)
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-oath-of-servitude-by-ce-wilson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
First off, I would like to thank the author for giving me a copy of the book! (That doesn't bias my review by all means.) I really enjoyed it. I also loved the cover. Hopefully, she appears in future covers. :)
I've always admired authors who are able to bounce from one character's POV to another one. I find that hard to do myself and I guess I myself fail at that in a way when I was on MissLiterati writing Supernaturals and other stories of randomisimo, which I now stopped writing about. :p
I wonder what my life would be like if I were only a foot tall (or less). Tiny notebooks and tiny pens... tiny everything! Actually, that reminds me of a crafting book I was so immersed in when I was in elementary school. The tiny cupcakes were adorable. Too bad I fail to be a cook (I broke the stove and was never trusted to cook again. Major oops). It was also disappointing that I never had enough materials to make them. It was fun reading/browsing through that crafting book. Connection being made (Old habits haunt later apparently), I'm going back to the right trail (kinda).
The book reminds me of a series I enjoy reading: The Iron Fey. Cailin reminds me of a certain ice dude of which I shall keep anonymous that is distant and doesn't give off much info until later. Or is that a bit of Teague as well? Anyhoo, Teague reminds me of a certain prankster and summer chick with personalities mixed together. Minus being blind and an alcoholic (and possibly MANY others). It also reminded me of The Iron Fey because of the unnatural relationship between 2 different types of fey species, or in this case, a pixi and a human. (Curiosity spikes up the question: What will happen if the Portune finds out about their relationship?)
I especially loved Cailin's and Teague's wits when they're around each other. Their conversations had a mix of humor and seriousness rolled with awesomous. I also enjoyed the drama within the pixi clans outside of Cailin's bubble of punishment. The Portune reminds me of another book with a faction, in this case clan, that are "greedy" for power, although I would like them better if you compare the two. Though they're a bit greedy for power and have a zillion threats if you break a rule, all they want is to keep the pixi's in line and not expose their existence to humans. It's all about safety for the pixi's. ^_^ It does makes sense though. I wouldn't want to be exposed to giant-like beings if I were them.
What really kept me from giving it full a perfect score were the grammatical and spelling errors, but there were none that really distracted me from the smooth and steady flow of the words throughout the story. I also felt there was a bit of a rush in the romance between Teague and Cailin. :/ Though not your typical YA Paranormal Romance story, I recommend the book to those who enjoy reading about faeries and looking for something that's not typical.
And as I may sometimes say about the endings of stories....
Ohhhh, the AGONY of the Cliff-Hanger(s)!
(I'm not kidding. I wonder how cliffs I'm really hanging on to now in total of all books. No doubt: MANY)
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-oath-of-servitude-by-ce-wilson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Powerless (The Hero Agenda, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<strong>Guys, I've found the Fight Book of the Year.</strong> At this rate I'm actually wondering if there's such a thing as a Blogger's Choice Awards so I can actually <i>nominate</i> this.
(If there is one, point me there NOW. I'll love you forever. :p)
In a world with heroes and villains, Kenna Swift works as an intern in a lab. While working in the lab one night, Kenna gets attacked by villains and is even saved by one of them. Being saved by a villain causes her to think about what a hero or a villain really is, and she ends up teaming up with them after finding out that maybe heroes aren't exactly heroes.
<b>I actually like Kenna as a character. Considering her circumstances, she's actually pretty brilliant and resourceful</b> when all else fails, kick butt by kneeing someone in the balls. She even had an experiment before everything went Inferno to try and become a hero as well instead of being powerless. <b>Her brilliance and intelligence sometimes fall short in the midst of chaos, but I pretty much approve her as a character.</b>
Except... I'm still irritated. <strong><i>Powerless</i> just has sooo many arguments and fights. The characters fight with each other constantly verbally and physically. The fighting takes up over half of the book</strong> when Kenna, Rebel, and Jeremy team up with villains. Kenna is basically a bystander, Rebel is ironically the glue, and Jeremy is going neck to neck with Draven. Nitro and Dante already have some tension between them. <strong>There's boy drama and fighting thrown together, and it is SO. DARN. IRRITATING.</strong>
Have I mentioned <strong>it sounds completely immature?</strong> By some point in the book, I've deemed <i>Powerless</i> <b>a book unworthy of memorability in my brain simply because of the number of fights that belong in a playground with unruly little kids tugging each other consistently.</b> The amount was also great enough I mentally started to threaten poor A.G. Howard's <i>Unhinged</i>.
But of course, <i><a title="Splintered by A.G. Howard" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Splintered</a></i> has a love triangle to which I feel completely indifferent to regardless of the fact I like the world and read the second book to determine which, if any, corner actually deserves my complete and utmost devotion.
(It also inspired a few discussion posts for the future. *tucks posts in an invisible drawer*)
Anyways, back to the fights. The majority of book are the characters not getting along for most of the book it's akin to the <a title="Lark by Erica Cope" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lark-by-erica-cope/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">romance overshadowing the plot</a> and I found it highly annoying. Meanwhile, <strong>I'm left with questions about the entire world after reading the book and none of them actually got answered.</strong><strong>
</strong>
How does this whole power thing work? Are powers inherited, or are they random? Is being a villain or hero random, or are they inherited (that seems to be yes)? Why was the hero/villain world created? HOW was it created? Was it an experiment gone awry? Is it similar to Captain America?
I got vague answers or no answers. Childs and Deebs may answer those questions in the sequels, or perhaps it's the overall plot of the series, but, I don't really see how it will all fit with what they've laid out in <i>Powerless</i>. <b>It's plot-driven and doesn't take too much time to develop the world or the characters, but makes you question what is considered good and evil.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-powerless-by-tera-lynn-childs-and-tracey-deebs/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
(If there is one, point me there NOW. I'll love you forever. :p)
In a world with heroes and villains, Kenna Swift works as an intern in a lab. While working in the lab one night, Kenna gets attacked by villains and is even saved by one of them. Being saved by a villain causes her to think about what a hero or a villain really is, and she ends up teaming up with them after finding out that maybe heroes aren't exactly heroes.
<b>I actually like Kenna as a character. Considering her circumstances, she's actually pretty brilliant and resourceful</b> when all else fails, kick butt by kneeing someone in the balls. She even had an experiment before everything went Inferno to try and become a hero as well instead of being powerless. <b>Her brilliance and intelligence sometimes fall short in the midst of chaos, but I pretty much approve her as a character.</b>
Except... I'm still irritated. <strong><i>Powerless</i> just has sooo many arguments and fights. The characters fight with each other constantly verbally and physically. The fighting takes up over half of the book</strong> when Kenna, Rebel, and Jeremy team up with villains. Kenna is basically a bystander, Rebel is ironically the glue, and Jeremy is going neck to neck with Draven. Nitro and Dante already have some tension between them. <strong>There's boy drama and fighting thrown together, and it is SO. DARN. IRRITATING.</strong>
Have I mentioned <strong>it sounds completely immature?</strong> By some point in the book, I've deemed <i>Powerless</i> <b>a book unworthy of memorability in my brain simply because of the number of fights that belong in a playground with unruly little kids tugging each other consistently.</b> The amount was also great enough I mentally started to threaten poor A.G. Howard's <i>Unhinged</i>.
But of course, <i><a title="Splintered by A.G. Howard" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Splintered</a></i> has a love triangle to which I feel completely indifferent to regardless of the fact I like the world and read the second book to determine which, if any, corner actually deserves my complete and utmost devotion.
(It also inspired a few discussion posts for the future. *tucks posts in an invisible drawer*)
Anyways, back to the fights. The majority of book are the characters not getting along for most of the book it's akin to the <a title="Lark by Erica Cope" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lark-by-erica-cope/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">romance overshadowing the plot</a> and I found it highly annoying. Meanwhile, <strong>I'm left with questions about the entire world after reading the book and none of them actually got answered.</strong><strong>
</strong>
How does this whole power thing work? Are powers inherited, or are they random? Is being a villain or hero random, or are they inherited (that seems to be yes)? Why was the hero/villain world created? HOW was it created? Was it an experiment gone awry? Is it similar to Captain America?
I got vague answers or no answers. Childs and Deebs may answer those questions in the sequels, or perhaps it's the overall plot of the series, but, I don't really see how it will all fit with what they've laid out in <i>Powerless</i>. <b>It's plot-driven and doesn't take too much time to develop the world or the characters, but makes you question what is considered good and evil.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-powerless-by-tera-lynn-childs-and-tracey-deebs/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Mary Queen of Scots (2018) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Verdict: Beautifully Shot
Story: Mary Queen of Scots starts as Queen Mary (Ronan) returns to Scotland a widow, her presence in Britain as put Queen Elizabeth (Robbie) position of Queen of England under pressure, as Mary has a rightful claim to the throne.
Mary does want to create peace, asking for one simply thing, to be the heir to the throne, while Elizabeth isn’t willing to accept this demand unless Mary marries an English nobleman, with her choice being Robert Dudley (Alwyn), while Mary falls for Henry Darnley (Lowden). As the tensions between the two queens rises, a potential war starts brewing for control of Britain.
Thoughts on Mary Queen of Scots
Characters – Queen Mary has returned from France after the death of her husband, she takes her place as Queen of Scotland looking to rebuild a nation, she wants to keep the peace between the two nations with her sister Queen Elizabeth, she wants to put her own place as heir on the line, believing she will get the chance if Elizabeth doesn’t have children. She has her own marriage with an English man, the one not selected for her and is always finding herself controlled by the actions of men, despite wanting to find her position of power. Queen Elizabeth is worried that Mary will put them into a war, she wants to stop the threat sooner, though her demands are simply, marry an English noble man and the two can live in harmony. We do know Elizabeth tendencies from history, though we also see how she is being controlled by the men around her, just like Mary. When it comes to the men we meet, we see countless noble men that are trying to put their own name of power into position so they could one day control their country, none of them want what is best for either Queen.
Performances – Saoirse Ronan is incredible in the leading role showing that she is a major talent in the industry who can step into any role, while Margot Robbie shines in the supporting role, never looking out of place in her role in the film. Everyone else is strong through the film, letting both the two leading ladies shine the most.
Story – The story here follows Mary Queen of Scots who returned to Scotland looking to unite the two countries with her sister Queen Elizabeth ruling England, while the people around them, always try to stop the two working things out. This is a story based on history, it shows how leaders will try to create peace, only for people around them never wanting to let this happen, it showed how Queen might have power, but they didn’t have control however much they tried to get their ideas through. It shows how in a by gone age, people would look down on a woman in power, believing they had duties to produce babies and heirs rather than actually rule the land. We do focus more on the struggle of Queen Mary and how she tried to always do the right thing and the downs that came her way.
Biopic – The biopic side of this film plays into the history of the two Queen of Britain who both tried to do the right thing to help bring people together and never were given the control.
Settings – The settings look beautiful for each shot, with the sets look stunning, while the outdoor locations are breath taking.
Scene of the Movie – The meeting between the two.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have seen more from the Elizabeth side of the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a beautifully shot movie that tells a huge moment in history that showed that the women in power never got the power they were meant to have.
Overall: Important Historical Drama.
Story: Mary Queen of Scots starts as Queen Mary (Ronan) returns to Scotland a widow, her presence in Britain as put Queen Elizabeth (Robbie) position of Queen of England under pressure, as Mary has a rightful claim to the throne.
Mary does want to create peace, asking for one simply thing, to be the heir to the throne, while Elizabeth isn’t willing to accept this demand unless Mary marries an English nobleman, with her choice being Robert Dudley (Alwyn), while Mary falls for Henry Darnley (Lowden). As the tensions between the two queens rises, a potential war starts brewing for control of Britain.
Thoughts on Mary Queen of Scots
Characters – Queen Mary has returned from France after the death of her husband, she takes her place as Queen of Scotland looking to rebuild a nation, she wants to keep the peace between the two nations with her sister Queen Elizabeth, she wants to put her own place as heir on the line, believing she will get the chance if Elizabeth doesn’t have children. She has her own marriage with an English man, the one not selected for her and is always finding herself controlled by the actions of men, despite wanting to find her position of power. Queen Elizabeth is worried that Mary will put them into a war, she wants to stop the threat sooner, though her demands are simply, marry an English noble man and the two can live in harmony. We do know Elizabeth tendencies from history, though we also see how she is being controlled by the men around her, just like Mary. When it comes to the men we meet, we see countless noble men that are trying to put their own name of power into position so they could one day control their country, none of them want what is best for either Queen.
Performances – Saoirse Ronan is incredible in the leading role showing that she is a major talent in the industry who can step into any role, while Margot Robbie shines in the supporting role, never looking out of place in her role in the film. Everyone else is strong through the film, letting both the two leading ladies shine the most.
Story – The story here follows Mary Queen of Scots who returned to Scotland looking to unite the two countries with her sister Queen Elizabeth ruling England, while the people around them, always try to stop the two working things out. This is a story based on history, it shows how leaders will try to create peace, only for people around them never wanting to let this happen, it showed how Queen might have power, but they didn’t have control however much they tried to get their ideas through. It shows how in a by gone age, people would look down on a woman in power, believing they had duties to produce babies and heirs rather than actually rule the land. We do focus more on the struggle of Queen Mary and how she tried to always do the right thing and the downs that came her way.
Biopic – The biopic side of this film plays into the history of the two Queen of Britain who both tried to do the right thing to help bring people together and never were given the control.
Settings – The settings look beautiful for each shot, with the sets look stunning, while the outdoor locations are breath taking.
Scene of the Movie – The meeting between the two.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have seen more from the Elizabeth side of the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a beautifully shot movie that tells a huge moment in history that showed that the women in power never got the power they were meant to have.
Overall: Important Historical Drama.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Downhill (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
I'm not going to lie, the trailer did not look good. I went in expecting something that would hopefully be mildly amusing to pass the time before seeing The Invisible Man, thank goodness I saw this one first, ending my double bill with this would have been heart-breaking.
Pete and Billie are taking their two boys away for a skiing trip, things have been tough recently and they all need a chance to unwind. When a controlled explosion on the slopes gets a little too close for comfort the family are shaken. When the snow settles Billie, who instinctively went to protect her sons looks around and Pete is nowhere to be seen. Tensions run high between the could and they both start to wonder what the situation means for their family.
Let me first state that this is a confused mess of genre, I think that was clear even in the trailer, but it became more evident as I sat through the film. It isn't funny enough to be comedy and it's trying so hard to be comedy that it misses drama.
This could turn into a bitch fest if I let it but there are some good points I would like to mention (while I'm not angry at this film).
Both Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell get to have moments that are actually quite moving. In the trailer we see Billie relaying their story to their friends, that complete scene you can tell that Louis-Dreyfus is digging deep for that emotion and it comes through incredibly well. Ferrell, when he finally gets to open up about the event felt very sincere, though he does manage to get upstaged by Billie seconds later.
The setting is obviously very picturesque and they do a great job of showing the contrast between the two different resorts, there are quite a lot of clips of skiing that feel like stock footage and somehow feel out of place with whatever genre this film was. The snow footage that really excited me was that initial avalanche early on, for the briefest moment I thought I'd misjudged the film (it was a fleeting feeling). The rush of the snow, the sound and the reaction of the people on the deck really made for a tense moment.
I'm at a loss for anything apart from that thought. I think I vaguely remember laughing at one point, or more accurately, exhaling slightly more vigorously than normal, but I couldn't tell you which bit that was. The guy across the aisle from me (who arrived nearly 20 minutes late) was roaring with laughter... I just couldn't see any of it. None of the jokes landed and the one character who seemed to only be there for comedic effect was so over the top that it just became annoying.
Will Ferrell's movie career is an interesting thing to scroll through, it has a lot of films you've heard of, most of which I just kind of go "meh" at and will never see again. I honestly don't think I've enjoyed one of his films since Old School. Downhill is sadly no different. I had hoped that this might have been interestingly different with its drama aspect but there was nothing to dig it out of that avalanche.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus wasn't bad, I think mainly because her character wasn't overly burdened with any of the comic stuff to do. A lot of her role was serious and that really helped. But with the film feeling so mediocre/bad around her most of the good acting was lost.
If you can find the good in this film then I'm really pleased for you, but I was left confused and somewhat down about what I'd seen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/downhill-movie-review.html
Pete and Billie are taking their two boys away for a skiing trip, things have been tough recently and they all need a chance to unwind. When a controlled explosion on the slopes gets a little too close for comfort the family are shaken. When the snow settles Billie, who instinctively went to protect her sons looks around and Pete is nowhere to be seen. Tensions run high between the could and they both start to wonder what the situation means for their family.
Let me first state that this is a confused mess of genre, I think that was clear even in the trailer, but it became more evident as I sat through the film. It isn't funny enough to be comedy and it's trying so hard to be comedy that it misses drama.
This could turn into a bitch fest if I let it but there are some good points I would like to mention (while I'm not angry at this film).
Both Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell get to have moments that are actually quite moving. In the trailer we see Billie relaying their story to their friends, that complete scene you can tell that Louis-Dreyfus is digging deep for that emotion and it comes through incredibly well. Ferrell, when he finally gets to open up about the event felt very sincere, though he does manage to get upstaged by Billie seconds later.
The setting is obviously very picturesque and they do a great job of showing the contrast between the two different resorts, there are quite a lot of clips of skiing that feel like stock footage and somehow feel out of place with whatever genre this film was. The snow footage that really excited me was that initial avalanche early on, for the briefest moment I thought I'd misjudged the film (it was a fleeting feeling). The rush of the snow, the sound and the reaction of the people on the deck really made for a tense moment.
I'm at a loss for anything apart from that thought. I think I vaguely remember laughing at one point, or more accurately, exhaling slightly more vigorously than normal, but I couldn't tell you which bit that was. The guy across the aisle from me (who arrived nearly 20 minutes late) was roaring with laughter... I just couldn't see any of it. None of the jokes landed and the one character who seemed to only be there for comedic effect was so over the top that it just became annoying.
Will Ferrell's movie career is an interesting thing to scroll through, it has a lot of films you've heard of, most of which I just kind of go "meh" at and will never see again. I honestly don't think I've enjoyed one of his films since Old School. Downhill is sadly no different. I had hoped that this might have been interestingly different with its drama aspect but there was nothing to dig it out of that avalanche.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus wasn't bad, I think mainly because her character wasn't overly burdened with any of the comic stuff to do. A lot of her role was serious and that really helped. But with the film feeling so mediocre/bad around her most of the good acting was lost.
If you can find the good in this film then I'm really pleased for you, but I was left confused and somewhat down about what I'd seen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/downhill-movie-review.html