Search
Hello Bendy Machine 5 Nights
Games
App
Do you like horror games? We bring you a very special one – it based on childish fears! Play Hello...
games
Flipping Houses for Rookies
Podcast
Discover the secret methods I'm using to earn massive piles of cash By “flipping houses” without...
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated Alpha's Embrace (Omega Misfits #3) in Books
Apr 19, 2020
a needed addition but falls far flat of the other two books
Independent reviewer for Gay Romance Reviews, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 3 in the Omega Misfits series, but you don't need to have read Trust No Alpha (book 1) or The Alpha's Fake Mate (book 2) before you read this one. They all take place in the same world, but can totally be read as a stand alone read. I HAVE read them, although I did not write reviews for them as I read them via the Unlimited programme.
And I found THIS one the weakest of the three.
Alphas are supposed to mate with Omegas and ONLY with Omegas. However when 2 Omegas mate, and produce a child, that child is a Sylph. Sylph children are removed from society and kept locked up for their own good. They live with a constant Burn, unlike Alphas who get them regularly, and most do not live into adulthood for going insane.
Misha is such a child. Well, not a child, he is well into adulthood and a bit of an anomoly. He can control his Burn, and be a productive member of society, BUT for the fact he is Sylph. Geo is an Alpha and the new general manager at the facility where Misha lives. When Geo touches Misha without gloves, a bond begins. A bond that is as illegal as it is dangerous. To BOTH of them.
Both Misha and Geo know this is different, whatever they are feeling, but Geo is best able to voice it and rationalise what is happening between them. Misha is, for want of a better explanation, away with the fairies most of the time, but then again, being locked up all the time would make anyone so. Misha KNOWS he is Sylph, he KNOWS he cannot bond, so he doesn't know what this is between him and Geo. He KNOWS he wants Geo, in a way that is different to his usual want (Sylphs want everyone) he just doesn't know what to do. Geo makes the decision, but Misha is given a choice. I liked that it took time for them to act on the bond, to consummate it. They both have thoughts about the other, it just takes time for them to act on it. I've filed it as m-preg, cos it is talked about and does appear in other books in the series, but there isn't any here.
Both guys have a say, in the first person. Misha's voice is a little airy-fairy, like I said and Geo's is very much an Alpha, but he does go a little off the rails, and that comes out of nowhere, to be honest. I found Geo the least liked of the three Alphas in these books and I cannot pinpoint exactly why.
I liked how it all sorted out, but I would have liked a bit of an epilogue, a some-time-later type thing, to catch up on them, and how things pan out after what they did, and whether things had changed for Misha with a fully formed bond.
A nice read, a GOOD addition to the series though and I think it really was needed, a story about the Slyph children, who are talked about in the other books. This book just didn't push my buttons as the other two did, I'm afraid.
3 good solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 3 in the Omega Misfits series, but you don't need to have read Trust No Alpha (book 1) or The Alpha's Fake Mate (book 2) before you read this one. They all take place in the same world, but can totally be read as a stand alone read. I HAVE read them, although I did not write reviews for them as I read them via the Unlimited programme.
And I found THIS one the weakest of the three.
Alphas are supposed to mate with Omegas and ONLY with Omegas. However when 2 Omegas mate, and produce a child, that child is a Sylph. Sylph children are removed from society and kept locked up for their own good. They live with a constant Burn, unlike Alphas who get them regularly, and most do not live into adulthood for going insane.
Misha is such a child. Well, not a child, he is well into adulthood and a bit of an anomoly. He can control his Burn, and be a productive member of society, BUT for the fact he is Sylph. Geo is an Alpha and the new general manager at the facility where Misha lives. When Geo touches Misha without gloves, a bond begins. A bond that is as illegal as it is dangerous. To BOTH of them.
Both Misha and Geo know this is different, whatever they are feeling, but Geo is best able to voice it and rationalise what is happening between them. Misha is, for want of a better explanation, away with the fairies most of the time, but then again, being locked up all the time would make anyone so. Misha KNOWS he is Sylph, he KNOWS he cannot bond, so he doesn't know what this is between him and Geo. He KNOWS he wants Geo, in a way that is different to his usual want (Sylphs want everyone) he just doesn't know what to do. Geo makes the decision, but Misha is given a choice. I liked that it took time for them to act on the bond, to consummate it. They both have thoughts about the other, it just takes time for them to act on it. I've filed it as m-preg, cos it is talked about and does appear in other books in the series, but there isn't any here.
Both guys have a say, in the first person. Misha's voice is a little airy-fairy, like I said and Geo's is very much an Alpha, but he does go a little off the rails, and that comes out of nowhere, to be honest. I found Geo the least liked of the three Alphas in these books and I cannot pinpoint exactly why.
I liked how it all sorted out, but I would have liked a bit of an epilogue, a some-time-later type thing, to catch up on them, and how things pan out after what they did, and whether things had changed for Misha with a fully formed bond.
A nice read, a GOOD addition to the series though and I think it really was needed, a story about the Slyph children, who are talked about in the other books. This book just didn't push my buttons as the other two did, I'm afraid.
3 good solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ricki And The Flash (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The iron lady goes all iron maiden
Meryl Streep has always been one of our most reliable actresses. The three-time Oscar winner has starred in some iconic films, from Sophie’s Choice to The Devil Wears Prada and from Kramer vs Kramer to The Iron Lady, she can turn her hand to almost anything.
However, her latest role sees the fan favourite star as an ageing rock star who must heal the voids in her family after an incident. But does Ricki & the Flash do Meryl proud?
The film sees Streep play Ricki Rendazzo, aka Linda, a musician playing in the pubs of California, estranged from her family after years of absence. Suddenly, she’s thrown back into the mix after her daughter Julie, played superbly by Meryl’s real-life offspring Mamie Gummer, faces a personal crisis.
Starring alongside the Academy Award winner is the ever-reliable Kevin Kline as Linda’s ex-wife Pete. His scenes with her show real chemistry and the relationship they share is completely believable.
Having Streep’s daughter on the screen with her was a masterstroke by director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs) and they share more than just a familiar face. Their mannerisms are completely in sync and match up together in more ways than any acting class could have taught.
Unfortunately, the clichéd script and predictable story really let Ricki & the Flash down. There’s not an ounce of originality here, despite the great casting, and the ending is signposted not only in the film itself, but in the trailers – the cardinal sin of movie marketing.
What is a pleasant surprise however is Meryl’s cracking vocal performance. With her belting out hits like Lady GaGa’s Bad Romance and Pink’s Get the Party Started left, right and centre, the soundtrack is positively sizzling and a real highlight throughout the film.
Nevertheless, Demme’s usual visual flair, for which he won an Oscar back in 1991 with The Silence of the Lambs, is nowhere to be found here. The cinematography is inoffensive enough but lacking in any real punch, a disappointment given the film’s bursting energy.
I feel that Streep too is aware of these shackles and her characterisation, whilst capable, lacks the finesse of some of her other work. Let’s remember though, that Streep at her worst is many other actresses at their best.
Overall, Ricki & the Flash is a capable film led by a pleasant and inoffensive cast. Meryl Streep is always reason enough to give any movie a go, but this somewhat muddled comedy drama is towards the bottom end of her work.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/06/the-iron-lady-goes-all-iron-maiden-ricki-the-flash-review/
However, her latest role sees the fan favourite star as an ageing rock star who must heal the voids in her family after an incident. But does Ricki & the Flash do Meryl proud?
The film sees Streep play Ricki Rendazzo, aka Linda, a musician playing in the pubs of California, estranged from her family after years of absence. Suddenly, she’s thrown back into the mix after her daughter Julie, played superbly by Meryl’s real-life offspring Mamie Gummer, faces a personal crisis.
Starring alongside the Academy Award winner is the ever-reliable Kevin Kline as Linda’s ex-wife Pete. His scenes with her show real chemistry and the relationship they share is completely believable.
Having Streep’s daughter on the screen with her was a masterstroke by director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs) and they share more than just a familiar face. Their mannerisms are completely in sync and match up together in more ways than any acting class could have taught.
Unfortunately, the clichéd script and predictable story really let Ricki & the Flash down. There’s not an ounce of originality here, despite the great casting, and the ending is signposted not only in the film itself, but in the trailers – the cardinal sin of movie marketing.
What is a pleasant surprise however is Meryl’s cracking vocal performance. With her belting out hits like Lady GaGa’s Bad Romance and Pink’s Get the Party Started left, right and centre, the soundtrack is positively sizzling and a real highlight throughout the film.
Nevertheless, Demme’s usual visual flair, for which he won an Oscar back in 1991 with The Silence of the Lambs, is nowhere to be found here. The cinematography is inoffensive enough but lacking in any real punch, a disappointment given the film’s bursting energy.
I feel that Streep too is aware of these shackles and her characterisation, whilst capable, lacks the finesse of some of her other work. Let’s remember though, that Streep at her worst is many other actresses at their best.
Overall, Ricki & the Flash is a capable film led by a pleasant and inoffensive cast. Meryl Streep is always reason enough to give any movie a go, but this somewhat muddled comedy drama is towards the bottom end of her work.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/06/the-iron-lady-goes-all-iron-maiden-ricki-the-flash-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Fun Film
The heroes of Bricksburg are back to save their city from the evil invaders LEGO DUPLO. Though not nearly as good as the first movie, The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part packs enough punch to be an entertaining watch.
Acting: 10
Chris Pratt is back playing the lovable Emmet. The depth of voice-acting in animated movies has grown stronger over the years and this movie is no exception. So many great actors and actresses lend their voices, my favorite of which being Will Arnett as Batman. Seriously, he just might be the best Batman out of all the Batmen that have graced the big screen.
Beginning: 2
Weak start for me. Not that it lacked action, it just didn’t quite suck me into the world as successfully as the first managed to do. I was mildly entertained after watching the first ten minutes.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is surprisingly ambitious, sprawling across a number of different worlds that are visually stunning. From wasteland to spaceworld, you get a taste of a little bit of everything. I especially enjoyed Emmet’s home (and all of its features) out in the middle of nowhere, really nice touch.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 9
In addition to its creative setpieces, the movie succeeds in hilarity. It’s not perfect by any means, but I’m happy to say that it’s funny from start to finish. I was also pleasantly impressed with how creative some of the action sequences were. Sure, they were nods to other movies, but they did it with their own LEGO spin.
Memorability: 10
I commend the movie for going the extra mile to leave a mark. It was nice seeing appearances from characters like Gary Payton and members of the Harry Potter crew. I also appreciated the messaging around growing up but still keeping your childlike spirit.
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Clever story that keeps the world fresh. I thought they would have a hard time matching the originality of the first, but they definitely succeeded here. Loved how they incorporate things like Ourmomaggedon to keep the tie to the real world. The story seamlessly provided a clear growth for the characters overall.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that was even better than the overall story itself. Makes up for the weak start. It had me looking forward to a potential third movie. Potential? Let’s be honest, there will be a third without a doubt.
Overall: 84
A part of what made the first movie so successful is not finding out about the tie to the real world until its conclusion. Knowing that throughout made the movie just slightly less enjoyable. For the most part, I liked this new addition to the franchise and I’m excited to see where it goes from here.
Acting: 10
Chris Pratt is back playing the lovable Emmet. The depth of voice-acting in animated movies has grown stronger over the years and this movie is no exception. So many great actors and actresses lend their voices, my favorite of which being Will Arnett as Batman. Seriously, he just might be the best Batman out of all the Batmen that have graced the big screen.
Beginning: 2
Weak start for me. Not that it lacked action, it just didn’t quite suck me into the world as successfully as the first managed to do. I was mildly entertained after watching the first ten minutes.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is surprisingly ambitious, sprawling across a number of different worlds that are visually stunning. From wasteland to spaceworld, you get a taste of a little bit of everything. I especially enjoyed Emmet’s home (and all of its features) out in the middle of nowhere, really nice touch.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 9
In addition to its creative setpieces, the movie succeeds in hilarity. It’s not perfect by any means, but I’m happy to say that it’s funny from start to finish. I was also pleasantly impressed with how creative some of the action sequences were. Sure, they were nods to other movies, but they did it with their own LEGO spin.
Memorability: 10
I commend the movie for going the extra mile to leave a mark. It was nice seeing appearances from characters like Gary Payton and members of the Harry Potter crew. I also appreciated the messaging around growing up but still keeping your childlike spirit.
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Clever story that keeps the world fresh. I thought they would have a hard time matching the originality of the first, but they definitely succeeded here. Loved how they incorporate things like Ourmomaggedon to keep the tie to the real world. The story seamlessly provided a clear growth for the characters overall.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that was even better than the overall story itself. Makes up for the weak start. It had me looking forward to a potential third movie. Potential? Let’s be honest, there will be a third without a doubt.
Overall: 84
A part of what made the first movie so successful is not finding out about the tie to the real world until its conclusion. Knowing that throughout made the movie just slightly less enjoyable. For the most part, I liked this new addition to the franchise and I’m excited to see where it goes from here.
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated Scott (Owatonna U Hockey #2) in Books
Mar 29, 2019
much better than book one!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book two in the Owatonna U Hockey trilogy, but you don't need to have read book one first. I have though, and found THAT book not really to my liking.
THIS one, however, I enjoyed far more.
Scott is suffering, since his brother died, and decides to self medicate with illegal steroids. After punching his best friend in the face, Scott is suspended for a whole 12 months, and is quite literally, chucked out his home. With nowhere to go, he happens to meet Hayne at a mandatory counselling session. Hayne, for reasons he cannot fathom, takes pity on Scott and the pair become inseparable. They each have their own demons, but together, they just might be able to overcome them.
Like I said, a MUCH better read, for me anyway, that Ryker. And much of that is because I didn't much care for Ryker in his book and I'll come back to that in a minute, though.
Hayne is a free spirited artist, in his final year at college. He is terrorised by his tenants, and spends all his time in his room, trying to paint his final piece. Meeting Scott, who turns out to be the muse he was missing, wasn't planned, but Hayne runs with it. Helping Scott get back to hockey seems the right and best thing to do. That Scott helps Hayne is a much added bonus.
Hayne is LOVELY!! So sweet, I wanted to punch his housemates! And the fact that he really sees Scott helps. Scott is trying to be the son his father wants, but he isn't his brother Luke. He will NEVER be Luke. His father pushes Scott away, and it takes his mother, who has been self medicating in the bottom of a bottle, to pull HER big girl panties up, and make her husband and son see that they are BOTH suffering and TOGETHER they can make some semblance of a relationship again.
Loved Hayne's mum and Mimi! Loved that they took Scott in when he needed someone the most, Hayne aside.
Back to Ryker. I did not like him in his book, but he does redeem himself somewhat here! While Scott is hiding, his friends, the ones he thought hated him, were planning an intervention, and Ryker is foremost at getting Scott to see that his friends don't hate him, they just didn't see how much he was suffering.
It does carry some darker story lines, grief, bereavement, alcohol and drug abuse, but they are all part and parcel of Scott's story, and they are very well written.
Oh, and you'll need tissues. I cried a LOT with this book!
Can't QUITE get past the first person to stretch to 5 stars, but a much better than book one:
4 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book two in the Owatonna U Hockey trilogy, but you don't need to have read book one first. I have though, and found THAT book not really to my liking.
THIS one, however, I enjoyed far more.
Scott is suffering, since his brother died, and decides to self medicate with illegal steroids. After punching his best friend in the face, Scott is suspended for a whole 12 months, and is quite literally, chucked out his home. With nowhere to go, he happens to meet Hayne at a mandatory counselling session. Hayne, for reasons he cannot fathom, takes pity on Scott and the pair become inseparable. They each have their own demons, but together, they just might be able to overcome them.
Like I said, a MUCH better read, for me anyway, that Ryker. And much of that is because I didn't much care for Ryker in his book and I'll come back to that in a minute, though.
Hayne is a free spirited artist, in his final year at college. He is terrorised by his tenants, and spends all his time in his room, trying to paint his final piece. Meeting Scott, who turns out to be the muse he was missing, wasn't planned, but Hayne runs with it. Helping Scott get back to hockey seems the right and best thing to do. That Scott helps Hayne is a much added bonus.
Hayne is LOVELY!! So sweet, I wanted to punch his housemates! And the fact that he really sees Scott helps. Scott is trying to be the son his father wants, but he isn't his brother Luke. He will NEVER be Luke. His father pushes Scott away, and it takes his mother, who has been self medicating in the bottom of a bottle, to pull HER big girl panties up, and make her husband and son see that they are BOTH suffering and TOGETHER they can make some semblance of a relationship again.
Loved Hayne's mum and Mimi! Loved that they took Scott in when he needed someone the most, Hayne aside.
Back to Ryker. I did not like him in his book, but he does redeem himself somewhat here! While Scott is hiding, his friends, the ones he thought hated him, were planning an intervention, and Ryker is foremost at getting Scott to see that his friends don't hate him, they just didn't see how much he was suffering.
It does carry some darker story lines, grief, bereavement, alcohol and drug abuse, but they are all part and parcel of Scott's story, and they are very well written.
Oh, and you'll need tissues. I cried a LOT with this book!
Can't QUITE get past the first person to stretch to 5 stars, but a much better than book one:
4 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Lockdown (Escape from Furnace, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
<b> My summary: </b> Alex was like any other boy. Go to school, hang out with his group, and control the monkey bars. But when he started stealing, his life changed for the worse. Out of nowhere, his best friend is murdered, and he is framed for it. he is sent to the child prison: a Hell hole. Worse than Hell. Furnace. When he’s there, he is disgusted with the way people live. Kids do hard labor like chipping rock. Gangs kill kids. and he isn’t the only innocent person who was framed. But there’s no hope of escape. Nobody can escape furnace. Or at least, that’s what they all say. <i> But that’s only because nobody ever has… </i>
<b> What I felt: </b> Personally, the first time I looked at the cover, I found it just a little disturbing. I thought “eh, I doubt very seriously I’ll like that book. But hey—they want to send me a free book? I’ll take a free book.” So no, I didn’t really like the cover. They could have done much better, either artistically or graphically or even with the colors. But that’s just me as an artist and a girl :D so I did judge it. boy was that a mistake.
The first sentence of this book seemed to grab me by the neck: “If I stopped running, I was dead.” From there, the entire book held me and wouldn’t let me go, from that first sentence to the very end. In fact, it held me after the end, too. I distinctly remember my blood racing, heart beating, sweating, adrenalin searing through my veins while I read this book! It was breathtaking and riveting to the last word. And even after the last word. I sat there, staring at the blank page, gasping and panting like a dog from lack of oxygen from reading a book. (that doesn’t happen very often, people.)
<b> Characters: </b> The characters in this book were very relatable. They weren’t super people, they were real. They handled the horrific experiences of Furnace the same way I would have—screaming in their sleep, crying, throwing up from the horrors.
<b> Writing: </b> the writing was very good—not one of those books where the author just says what he wants to say. Alexander Gordon Smith followed my creative writing teachers’ first rule: Show, don’t tell. It was an amazing thing to read, the language was very full in vocabulary, and it had good prose. There wasn’t any really bad foul language either, like some of the other teen books I’ve been reading lately.
Recommendation: this book is a thriller, not a horror book, even though it’s mildly graphic (mildly. Not really that bad. Descriptive enough to be kinda gross at times… but hey, it could be just because I’m a girl.). It’s not the most horrific book I’ve ever read, but it’s certainly not for an eight-year-old. Personally I’d recommend it for anyone fourteen and up (but that’s just me).
Here is a link for a giveaway for this book! http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/2009/09/win-lockdown.html
<b> What I felt: </b> Personally, the first time I looked at the cover, I found it just a little disturbing. I thought “eh, I doubt very seriously I’ll like that book. But hey—they want to send me a free book? I’ll take a free book.” So no, I didn’t really like the cover. They could have done much better, either artistically or graphically or even with the colors. But that’s just me as an artist and a girl :D so I did judge it. boy was that a mistake.
The first sentence of this book seemed to grab me by the neck: “If I stopped running, I was dead.” From there, the entire book held me and wouldn’t let me go, from that first sentence to the very end. In fact, it held me after the end, too. I distinctly remember my blood racing, heart beating, sweating, adrenalin searing through my veins while I read this book! It was breathtaking and riveting to the last word. And even after the last word. I sat there, staring at the blank page, gasping and panting like a dog from lack of oxygen from reading a book. (that doesn’t happen very often, people.)
<b> Characters: </b> The characters in this book were very relatable. They weren’t super people, they were real. They handled the horrific experiences of Furnace the same way I would have—screaming in their sleep, crying, throwing up from the horrors.
<b> Writing: </b> the writing was very good—not one of those books where the author just says what he wants to say. Alexander Gordon Smith followed my creative writing teachers’ first rule: Show, don’t tell. It was an amazing thing to read, the language was very full in vocabulary, and it had good prose. There wasn’t any really bad foul language either, like some of the other teen books I’ve been reading lately.
Recommendation: this book is a thriller, not a horror book, even though it’s mildly graphic (mildly. Not really that bad. Descriptive enough to be kinda gross at times… but hey, it could be just because I’m a girl.). It’s not the most horrific book I’ve ever read, but it’s certainly not for an eight-year-old. Personally I’d recommend it for anyone fourteen and up (but that’s just me).
Here is a link for a giveaway for this book! http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/2009/09/win-lockdown.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ticket to paradise (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2022
Charismatic Leads Saves This Underwritten Film
Have you watched one of the two ABBA Musical MAMA MIA films (MAMA MIA or MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN) and thought to yourself, “I want more of this, but with no music”.
If so, do I have a film for you.
The George Clooney/Julie Roberts Romantic Family Comedy TICKET TO PARADISE is a slight, somewhat fun lightweight film that won’t eat up too many brain cells while watching, but you’ll walk away satisfied and entertained if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. It is a movie geared towards older adults who just want to get away from the world and watch beautiful people in beautiful costumes tromping around beautiful scenery.
Written and Directed by Ol Parker (MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN, naturally), TICKET TO PARADISE tells the tale of an unhappily divorced couple (Clooney and Roberts, of course) who must overcome their differences and join together to stop their daughter from a hasty marriage - a mistake they both think they made when they married each other.
The opening of this movie is frenetic and tries just a bit too hard to establish the hate/hate competitive relationship between these 2 characters. Roberts fairs better in this part as she settles into her character fairly quickly - and she becomes the rock of the film. From the get go you understand her character and when all else fails in a scene, you know that Roberts will be there to rescue things. It is a steady, sturdy performance that shows that Roberts “still has it” as a movie star.
Clooney has more of a rollercoaster of a performance. For my tastes he tries to hard to be comedically funny in the first part of the film (a fault of his that can be scene in such Clooney comedic failures as O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING), but once we get past the initial scenes, Clooney settles down to be a somewhat comedic version of the calm, suave and sophisticated Clooney that we have grown to know and love.
The supporting characters are underwritten and are thin and nondescript with character arcs that really go nowhere. This is a shame for Billie Lourd (as the Best Friend of Clooney and Roberts’ daughter) and the couple that plays the grooms parents were interesting characters that could have/should have been fleshed out more.
The script and Direction by Parker are nothing special. It’s not bad but it also doesn’t elevate the proceedings above the pleasantness that it is - with one key exception. About 1/3 of the way through the film, Clooney launches into a monologue about how he and Roberts’ seemingly wonderful love fell apart, leading to divorce. It is a beautifully shot and directed scene and Clooney absolutely nails the speech mixing in anger and regret skillfully. This scene made me sit up in my chair thinking that maybe this film was taking a deeper, more dramatic turn at this point and it is shifting from a RomCom to a family drama.
But, alas, we head into a scene where Clooney and Roberts get drunk and shenanigans ensue. True…it looks like good friends Clooney and Roberts are having a good time playing with each other in the beautiful location of this film…but this fun never really translates to the audience.
The perfect airplane film - there is no intricate plot points that you’ll miss if you dose off for a moment or 2 - but perfectly, acceptably entertaining, this TICKET TO PARADISE could be worse…but could have been better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If so, do I have a film for you.
The George Clooney/Julie Roberts Romantic Family Comedy TICKET TO PARADISE is a slight, somewhat fun lightweight film that won’t eat up too many brain cells while watching, but you’ll walk away satisfied and entertained if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. It is a movie geared towards older adults who just want to get away from the world and watch beautiful people in beautiful costumes tromping around beautiful scenery.
Written and Directed by Ol Parker (MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN, naturally), TICKET TO PARADISE tells the tale of an unhappily divorced couple (Clooney and Roberts, of course) who must overcome their differences and join together to stop their daughter from a hasty marriage - a mistake they both think they made when they married each other.
The opening of this movie is frenetic and tries just a bit too hard to establish the hate/hate competitive relationship between these 2 characters. Roberts fairs better in this part as she settles into her character fairly quickly - and she becomes the rock of the film. From the get go you understand her character and when all else fails in a scene, you know that Roberts will be there to rescue things. It is a steady, sturdy performance that shows that Roberts “still has it” as a movie star.
Clooney has more of a rollercoaster of a performance. For my tastes he tries to hard to be comedically funny in the first part of the film (a fault of his that can be scene in such Clooney comedic failures as O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING), but once we get past the initial scenes, Clooney settles down to be a somewhat comedic version of the calm, suave and sophisticated Clooney that we have grown to know and love.
The supporting characters are underwritten and are thin and nondescript with character arcs that really go nowhere. This is a shame for Billie Lourd (as the Best Friend of Clooney and Roberts’ daughter) and the couple that plays the grooms parents were interesting characters that could have/should have been fleshed out more.
The script and Direction by Parker are nothing special. It’s not bad but it also doesn’t elevate the proceedings above the pleasantness that it is - with one key exception. About 1/3 of the way through the film, Clooney launches into a monologue about how he and Roberts’ seemingly wonderful love fell apart, leading to divorce. It is a beautifully shot and directed scene and Clooney absolutely nails the speech mixing in anger and regret skillfully. This scene made me sit up in my chair thinking that maybe this film was taking a deeper, more dramatic turn at this point and it is shifting from a RomCom to a family drama.
But, alas, we head into a scene where Clooney and Roberts get drunk and shenanigans ensue. True…it looks like good friends Clooney and Roberts are having a good time playing with each other in the beautiful location of this film…but this fun never really translates to the audience.
The perfect airplane film - there is no intricate plot points that you’ll miss if you dose off for a moment or 2 - but perfectly, acceptably entertaining, this TICKET TO PARADISE could be worse…but could have been better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!