Search
Search results
bting English - Abroad Tour English
Travel and Education
App
Read a trip - travel is the best way to enjoy life, release work pressure. In recent years, foreign...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan (2021) in Movies
Aug 20, 2021
Good jokes, most of which land (1 more)
Enough David Brent/Partridge moments to make you cringe
As a PJDN virgin, I still laughed a lot!
It’s brave then that such a relatively niche UK TV show should have a go at ‘jumping the shark’ onto the big screen. Would fans like it? And, just as importantly, would newcomers to the characters, like me, be able to enjoy the film as a standalone entity? The answer to the last question is a qualified “yes”.
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Exercising your Damons.
Millions of people watching the Oscars would have seen Jimmy Kimmel roasting poor Matt Damon as a part of their long running ‘feud’. At one point he points out that Matt gave up the leading role in “Manchester by the Sea” to star in a “Chinese ponytail movie” that “went on to lose $80 million at the box office”. “The Great Wall” is that movie!
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Foreigner (2017) in Movies
Dec 20, 2017
Boooo
If you're expecting me to say something nice about The Foreigner, please do us both a favor and click out of this review right now. On paper, it appears to be right up Jackie Chan's alley. After his daughter is killed in a terrorist attack, Quan (Jackie) is trying to hunt down the men that did it. He is willing to stop at nothing to get his revenge.
The formulaic aspect of the film ruins the entire experience. Here's the rundown: Jackie walks into Pierce Brosnan's office demanding names (Who did this????). When Brosnan is not forthcoming with the names, Jackie storms off usually doing something crazy in his departure. Brosnan sends men to take Jackie down. Jackie beats the crap out of them. When the men return, Brosnan asks, "How the hell did you get your ass kicked by this old man?"
Rinse and repeat.
I'm serious, it's so ridiculous at times it becomes almost comical. You would think with this straight-arrow formula, the film would be easy to follow, but there are a lot of moving parts and I mean A LOT. I found myself saying, "Say what now?" too many times to count. I don't know, maybe it was more of a lack of interest than confusion on my part. Blade Runner 2049 had a number of things going on throughout and it's one of the best films I've seen all year.
The Foreigner is one of those films where you think of all the other things you could be doing instead of watching it. Folding clothes. Grocery shopping. Picking boogers. Screaming at your dog to get out of the trash. I mean, ANYTHING else. Could a few solid action sequences have saved the film? Probably. Did it?
Nope.
I honestly don't know how this passed the smell test on Rotten Tomatoes. In the words of the wonderful Jay Sherman: It stinks. I give it a 42.
The formulaic aspect of the film ruins the entire experience. Here's the rundown: Jackie walks into Pierce Brosnan's office demanding names (Who did this????). When Brosnan is not forthcoming with the names, Jackie storms off usually doing something crazy in his departure. Brosnan sends men to take Jackie down. Jackie beats the crap out of them. When the men return, Brosnan asks, "How the hell did you get your ass kicked by this old man?"
Rinse and repeat.
I'm serious, it's so ridiculous at times it becomes almost comical. You would think with this straight-arrow formula, the film would be easy to follow, but there are a lot of moving parts and I mean A LOT. I found myself saying, "Say what now?" too many times to count. I don't know, maybe it was more of a lack of interest than confusion on my part. Blade Runner 2049 had a number of things going on throughout and it's one of the best films I've seen all year.
The Foreigner is one of those films where you think of all the other things you could be doing instead of watching it. Folding clothes. Grocery shopping. Picking boogers. Screaming at your dog to get out of the trash. I mean, ANYTHING else. Could a few solid action sequences have saved the film? Probably. Did it?
Nope.
I honestly don't know how this passed the smell test on Rotten Tomatoes. In the words of the wonderful Jay Sherman: It stinks. I give it a 42.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Fix (Amos Decker #3) in Books
May 10, 2018
It's a typical day for Amos Decker. He is on his way to the Hoover Building in downtown Washington, DC when a man pulls out a gun and shoots a woman right in front of FBI Headquarters. Then he turns the gun on himself. What the hell just happened and most importantly for Decker to find out, why? This is Decker's second case working for the FBI and they've moved him and Jamison from Quantico up to the Washington Field Office. Why would someone choose to shoot another person in front of the FBI building? Why would a successful businessman with a family do such a thing? What did the woman he kill do? Will Decker and his team be able to answer these questions before it's too late?
Walter Dabney seems like your average businessman. He lives in a nice house, with his wife. His grown children are all out of the house doing their own things making a lives for themselves. There are so many secrets though that this family is hiding and slowly they all begin to unravel. After Dabney shoots Ann Berkshire in broad daylight and then himself, other people start to turn up dead. Are all of these deaths connected and what is the connection? When Harper Brown from the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) turns up claiming there is spy work involved, it makes Decker even more eager to solve this case. But there are secrets behinds every corner and getting different government agencies to cooperate is not the easiest task.
Government secrets, spies from decades ago, messages passed through dolls and Harry Potter books, how will it all end?
I really enjoyed this book. I love the character of Amos Decker. I like how he has no cut cards, and shoots straight from the hip. He may get up and walk out of a room without explanation. He has a unique personality with his ability to never forget and see things in color. I look forward to the next Decker adventure.
Walter Dabney seems like your average businessman. He lives in a nice house, with his wife. His grown children are all out of the house doing their own things making a lives for themselves. There are so many secrets though that this family is hiding and slowly they all begin to unravel. After Dabney shoots Ann Berkshire in broad daylight and then himself, other people start to turn up dead. Are all of these deaths connected and what is the connection? When Harper Brown from the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) turns up claiming there is spy work involved, it makes Decker even more eager to solve this case. But there are secrets behinds every corner and getting different government agencies to cooperate is not the easiest task.
Government secrets, spies from decades ago, messages passed through dolls and Harry Potter books, how will it all end?
I really enjoyed this book. I love the character of Amos Decker. I like how he has no cut cards, and shoots straight from the hip. He may get up and walk out of a room without explanation. He has a unique personality with his ability to never forget and see things in color. I look forward to the next Decker adventure.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated After Life in TV
Apr 3, 2019 (Updated Apr 3, 2019)
Brilliantly written (1 more)
Fantastically performed by the entire cast
Beautiful
Ricky Gervais seems to be like Marmite to most people. I have always really liked the guy. I love The Office and Extras and his first 3 stand up shows are amongst some of the funniest that I have ever seen. In the years since however, I have seem to fallen away from his projects. Not for any particular reason, but this lull meant that shows like Derek, Life's Too Short and An Idiot Abroad all passed me by. I'm not sure what it was about After Life that got me back on-board, maybe it was the fact alone that it was on Netflix.
Regardless, this show is fantastic. It is hilarious, it is truly touching, it is brilliantly written, acted and surprisingly well shot for what it is. The characters are all fantastic and their relationships with each other and the way that they analyse and question each other is brilliant too.
I think that the most impressive thing about the show overall though, is how much Gervais is able to say with such a simple premise and a small cast. There are only about 15 characters that we see in the small village where the show is set and yet Gervais has managed to tackle some really serious issues like grief, depression and suicide in a realistically convincing way and on top of that, he still manage to make you laugh. It really a masterful script and the entire cast do a brilliant job in their respective roles.
Overall, this is one of the best things that I have seen this year and I would strongly encourage everyone to give it a go, even if you are not a fan of Gervais or his previous projects. This show can take you from splitting your sides laughing to tearing up in an instant and any piece of art that can make me feel that way is extremely valuable in my eyes. Also the dog is amazing.
Regardless, this show is fantastic. It is hilarious, it is truly touching, it is brilliantly written, acted and surprisingly well shot for what it is. The characters are all fantastic and their relationships with each other and the way that they analyse and question each other is brilliant too.
I think that the most impressive thing about the show overall though, is how much Gervais is able to say with such a simple premise and a small cast. There are only about 15 characters that we see in the small village where the show is set and yet Gervais has managed to tackle some really serious issues like grief, depression and suicide in a realistically convincing way and on top of that, he still manage to make you laugh. It really a masterful script and the entire cast do a brilliant job in their respective roles.
Overall, this is one of the best things that I have seen this year and I would strongly encourage everyone to give it a go, even if you are not a fan of Gervais or his previous projects. This show can take you from splitting your sides laughing to tearing up in an instant and any piece of art that can make me feel that way is extremely valuable in my eyes. Also the dog is amazing.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Oblivion (2013) in Movies
May 12, 2019
Why didn't more people see this?
Tron Legacy director Joseph Kosinski brings his unique, stunning visual splendor to this unusual sci fi tale where everything is not quite what it seems.
Tom Cruise and Andrea Riseborough are in change of keeping robotic drones which protect large machines in a future where Earth is derelict and most of humanity has relocated to a moon of Saturn or a giant orbiting space station en route to the same destination.
A mysterious spacecraft crashes to Earth and one of the occupants is saved. They also have to deal with the unruly "scavs" out to kill them. Events take an interesting turn when the real villains and heroes are revealed and I doubt you can predict the outcome.
I am usually one to say movies that are just "eye candy" don't hold my interest; however, this film has a soul which goes deeper and kept my attention and riveted throughout.
Th engaging story and interesting characters mixed well even though I may have felt I had seen some of this before. Some trappings of films like The Matrix, 2001, Solaris or Arrival are present, but the director puts his own spin and the story kept pace entirely.
Also a standout was the score by musical group M83 who had never done a soundtrack before according to Tom Cruise during the audio commentary.
Not sure why this film was lost at the box office. Could've been the anti Tom Cruise factor, crowded summer movie season or even the highbrow concept plot which meant mediocre word of mouth kept people away.
I had recalled very mixed reviews myself which is why I hadn't watched until now which was a good thing I suppose which meant I was pleasantly surprised.
Appetites for much better-than-average science fiction should give this a try.
Tom Cruise and Andrea Riseborough are in change of keeping robotic drones which protect large machines in a future where Earth is derelict and most of humanity has relocated to a moon of Saturn or a giant orbiting space station en route to the same destination.
A mysterious spacecraft crashes to Earth and one of the occupants is saved. They also have to deal with the unruly "scavs" out to kill them. Events take an interesting turn when the real villains and heroes are revealed and I doubt you can predict the outcome.
I am usually one to say movies that are just "eye candy" don't hold my interest; however, this film has a soul which goes deeper and kept my attention and riveted throughout.
Th engaging story and interesting characters mixed well even though I may have felt I had seen some of this before. Some trappings of films like The Matrix, 2001, Solaris or Arrival are present, but the director puts his own spin and the story kept pace entirely.
Also a standout was the score by musical group M83 who had never done a soundtrack before according to Tom Cruise during the audio commentary.
Not sure why this film was lost at the box office. Could've been the anti Tom Cruise factor, crowded summer movie season or even the highbrow concept plot which meant mediocre word of mouth kept people away.
I had recalled very mixed reviews myself which is why I hadn't watched until now which was a good thing I suppose which meant I was pleasantly surprised.
Appetites for much better-than-average science fiction should give this a try.
Billie Wichkan (118 KP) rated A Single Source in Books
May 22, 2019
Veteran BBC reporter William Carver is in Cairo, bang in the middle of the Arab Spring. 'The only story in the world' according to his editor. But it isn't.
There's another story, more significant and potentially more dangerous, and if no one else is willing to tell it, then Carver will - whatever the consequences.
A Single Source tells two stories, which over a few tumultuous months come together to prove inextricably linked. There are the dramatic, world-changing events as protests spread across North Africa and the Middle East, led by a new generation of tech-savvy youngsters challenging the corrupt old order. And then there are two Eritrean brothers, desperate enough to risk everything to make their way across the continent to a better life in Europe.
The world is watching, but its attention span is increasingly short. Carver knows the story is a complex one and, in the age of Facebook, Twitter and rolling news, difficult stories are getting harder to tell. If everyone is a reporter, then who do you believe?
I have to say this book was a complete departure from the types of books I've been reading recently.
A Single Source is set in 2011 in a time that came to be known as the Arab Spring. Carver and his producer Patrick are in Cairos Tahrir Square to report on the January 25th uprising. There are three strands to the story the one set in Egypt, another revolving around the foreign office and the third set in Eritrea. Gradually these three strands are woven together..
A slow starter which I found very difficult to get into maybe because this is not my usual type of reading material.
This book is well written and descriptive and the author has done a lot of work and research.
Unfortunately just not my cup of tea but do recommend if political thrillers is what you like.
Many thanks to the publisher and Net Galley for the opportunity to review this book.
Review copied to Amazon UK but link not available yet.
There's another story, more significant and potentially more dangerous, and if no one else is willing to tell it, then Carver will - whatever the consequences.
A Single Source tells two stories, which over a few tumultuous months come together to prove inextricably linked. There are the dramatic, world-changing events as protests spread across North Africa and the Middle East, led by a new generation of tech-savvy youngsters challenging the corrupt old order. And then there are two Eritrean brothers, desperate enough to risk everything to make their way across the continent to a better life in Europe.
The world is watching, but its attention span is increasingly short. Carver knows the story is a complex one and, in the age of Facebook, Twitter and rolling news, difficult stories are getting harder to tell. If everyone is a reporter, then who do you believe?
I have to say this book was a complete departure from the types of books I've been reading recently.
A Single Source is set in 2011 in a time that came to be known as the Arab Spring. Carver and his producer Patrick are in Cairos Tahrir Square to report on the January 25th uprising. There are three strands to the story the one set in Egypt, another revolving around the foreign office and the third set in Eritrea. Gradually these three strands are woven together..
A slow starter which I found very difficult to get into maybe because this is not my usual type of reading material.
This book is well written and descriptive and the author has done a lot of work and research.
Unfortunately just not my cup of tea but do recommend if political thrillers is what you like.
Many thanks to the publisher and Net Galley for the opportunity to review this book.
Review copied to Amazon UK but link not available yet.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A whole new universe of Spideys!
Finally got around to watching this after reading lots of great reviews and it really delivered.
Having not known anything about the Miles Morales storyline or origin story, I was excited going into this without much prescreen knowledge (which doesn't happen much these days).
Basically a Brooklyn teenager gets bit by the that darn radioactive spider and then starts to exhibit his own Spidey traits after the original Peter Parker is killed in action. Much to the surprise of Miles, another wisecracking out of shape Peter shows up and says he's from another alternate universe or something where things are different. Eventually, Spider-Gwen, Spider-Man Noir, Peni Parker, and Spider-Ham also arrive to take on the Kingpin and a female version of Doc Ock to try and save the Earth from destruction.
The humor in the film is rally good. I guess I would say equivalent to a PG version of Deadpool with lots of wisecracks and sarcasm. My kind of screenplay. While not necessarily made for adults, I think both young and not so young would enjoy the fast pace of the film with very few dull spots.
They don't focus very much on the Peter Parker origin which is great since we have seen this already many times within the last few incarnations of the character. It's actually kind of amusing the way the keep repeating it in slightly different ways when the new Spideys emerge. The colors are bright and vibrant (I only saw in 2D) and the environments and backgrounds are interesting and complex which makes you dazzle for the cinematic eye candy for sure.
Due to the success critically as well as box office cred, it looks like this is the beginning of a franchise which is all right by me. I would highly recommend.
Having not known anything about the Miles Morales storyline or origin story, I was excited going into this without much prescreen knowledge (which doesn't happen much these days).
Basically a Brooklyn teenager gets bit by the that darn radioactive spider and then starts to exhibit his own Spidey traits after the original Peter Parker is killed in action. Much to the surprise of Miles, another wisecracking out of shape Peter shows up and says he's from another alternate universe or something where things are different. Eventually, Spider-Gwen, Spider-Man Noir, Peni Parker, and Spider-Ham also arrive to take on the Kingpin and a female version of Doc Ock to try and save the Earth from destruction.
The humor in the film is rally good. I guess I would say equivalent to a PG version of Deadpool with lots of wisecracks and sarcasm. My kind of screenplay. While not necessarily made for adults, I think both young and not so young would enjoy the fast pace of the film with very few dull spots.
They don't focus very much on the Peter Parker origin which is great since we have seen this already many times within the last few incarnations of the character. It's actually kind of amusing the way the keep repeating it in slightly different ways when the new Spideys emerge. The colors are bright and vibrant (I only saw in 2D) and the environments and backgrounds are interesting and complex which makes you dazzle for the cinematic eye candy for sure.
Due to the success critically as well as box office cred, it looks like this is the beginning of a franchise which is all right by me. I would highly recommend.
