Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Jarhead (2005) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Jarhead starts as we meet Anthony Swofford (Gyllenhaal) who joined the marines, it isn’t long before he gets taken by Staff Sgt Sykes (Foxx) to the US Marine Sniper division going through the training regime meeting his spotter Alan Troy (Sarsgaard).
When war breaks out the marines are set to the middle east, where they must adapt to the desert condition before going into to conflict, this will test their psychical shape and their mental health as the waiting is just part of the sniper’s game.
Thoughts on Jarhead
Characters – Anthony Swofford who wrote the book the film is based on, we see how he joined the military out of college and struggled at first through the training regime. Anthony soon discovered he was ready for this life as a sniper, but his time in the gulf sees him start to lose his mind. Alan Troy becomes the best friend of Anthony’s and his spotter, he seems to be the most level-headed marine in the unit. Staff Sgt Sykes is the one running the sniper unit, he demands respect and isn’t afraid to put the marines in their place.
Performances – Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the leading role, he shows everyone how he can play the calm soldier, the crazed soldier and the broken man through the scenes of the film which only increase what he is dealing with. Peter Sarsgaard give us a brilliant supporting performance which shows how the fear can be kept inside a calm outer layer. Jamie Foxx brings us the energy of a career military man.
Story – The story follows the experiences of one soldier that joins the marines before being put in the sniper division when war breaks out, he must adapt to life in the desert during the waiting game before the conflict. This story does show us just how difficult adapting to war can be for the soldiers and just how the war can be fought without needing to fire a weapon. It shows us just how the mindset can change over a set amount of time which will see the soldiers make decisions they wouldn’t normally consider making. This does focus on the idea that the main soldier Anthony never truly feels like he was part of the war followed by the effects of returning back from war can have on the soldiers who have returned.
Biopic/War – This film follows Anthony’s experience with war, it shows how war isn’t everything he was planning and how his mindset wasn’t in the right place for parts of his experience. The war side of the film shows us just how different war has become over the years, where the ground soldiers are not as required as once before.
Settings – The film has some wonderful uses of settings with the march sequence showing us just how open the area in question will be for the soldiers.
Scene of the Movie – Returning home.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Slow start.
Final Thoughts – This is a fascinating look at the modern war effort, how the biggest problem is now waiting for the war to begin rather than the fighting.
Overall: Modern war time.
When war breaks out the marines are set to the middle east, where they must adapt to the desert condition before going into to conflict, this will test their psychical shape and their mental health as the waiting is just part of the sniper’s game.
Thoughts on Jarhead
Characters – Anthony Swofford who wrote the book the film is based on, we see how he joined the military out of college and struggled at first through the training regime. Anthony soon discovered he was ready for this life as a sniper, but his time in the gulf sees him start to lose his mind. Alan Troy becomes the best friend of Anthony’s and his spotter, he seems to be the most level-headed marine in the unit. Staff Sgt Sykes is the one running the sniper unit, he demands respect and isn’t afraid to put the marines in their place.
Performances – Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the leading role, he shows everyone how he can play the calm soldier, the crazed soldier and the broken man through the scenes of the film which only increase what he is dealing with. Peter Sarsgaard give us a brilliant supporting performance which shows how the fear can be kept inside a calm outer layer. Jamie Foxx brings us the energy of a career military man.
Story – The story follows the experiences of one soldier that joins the marines before being put in the sniper division when war breaks out, he must adapt to life in the desert during the waiting game before the conflict. This story does show us just how difficult adapting to war can be for the soldiers and just how the war can be fought without needing to fire a weapon. It shows us just how the mindset can change over a set amount of time which will see the soldiers make decisions they wouldn’t normally consider making. This does focus on the idea that the main soldier Anthony never truly feels like he was part of the war followed by the effects of returning back from war can have on the soldiers who have returned.
Biopic/War – This film follows Anthony’s experience with war, it shows how war isn’t everything he was planning and how his mindset wasn’t in the right place for parts of his experience. The war side of the film shows us just how different war has become over the years, where the ground soldiers are not as required as once before.
Settings – The film has some wonderful uses of settings with the march sequence showing us just how open the area in question will be for the soldiers.
Scene of the Movie – Returning home.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Slow start.
Final Thoughts – This is a fascinating look at the modern war effort, how the biggest problem is now waiting for the war to begin rather than the fighting.
Overall: Modern war time.
The Great Prank War
Games and Entertainment
App
Help Mordecai, Rigby, Muscle Man and Skips take the park back from Gene and his goons with a...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Saw (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
One of the most impressive cinematic debuts in memory has arrived in theaters and showcases a very impressive writer/director team that seem poised for great things based on a very impressive debut.
The film is “Saw” and it is a triumph of suspense, horror, and drama that harkens back to the classic work of David Fincher, and dare I say Hitchcock, as it is a bold and daring film, that is a fresh and creative as it is innovative.
The film is written by and features Leigh Whannell, as Adam, a young man who awakens in a dark room in a bathtub filled with water. Although disoriented, Adam soon discovers he is not alone, as he shares the room with another man, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), who like him, is chained at the ankle and trapped in the room.
As bad as this is, there is a dead body in the middle of the room that underscores the peril of the situation. Adam and Lawrence eventually discover audio tapes and a player that indicate that they are being held as they do not appreciate the life that they have and as such, are going to lose it unless they can prove how much they want to live.
Lawrence is told via the taped instructions that if he does not kill Adam by 6:00, then his wife and daughter will be killed and clues are given to indicate where to look in the decrepit room. The fact that Adam and Lawrence are chained and have very limited mobility forces the two of them to work with one another, despite the mistrust Adam has towards Lawrence as he was the one they tape said had to be killed.
Lawrence begins to tell Adam that he thinks he knows who is behind their situation, as there has been a series of murders in the area and he was suspect. Through a series of flashbacks Lawrence informs Adam about the Jigsaw killer, who places victims in perilous situations but provides them with a way out, provided they are willing to take extreme measures to show how much they want to live. The bizarre and gruesome situations lead to the introduction of Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover), who is investigating the grizzly trail left by the killer. In many ways, “Saw” become two movies in one as we learn about the history of the crimes, and the investigation leading up to the present situation between Lawrence and Adam. The film also cleverly guises certain events keeping the audience guessing as to if they happened in the past or are occurring in the present adding to the mystery and suspense.
As the story unfolds we learn more about Adam that underscores the tension and allows new avenues for the story to unfold. I will not spoil the twists and turns of the story but suffice it to say, there are plenty of red herrings and plot twists that will keep the audience guessing and some very creative and shocking twists and turns that culminates in an ending that will become one of the most talked about in film history and is destined to carve a niche in horror history.
Director James Wan, who also created the story, has crafted a visually gripping and disturbing film with a very effective pace that shows ability and talent well beyond his years. The film is so masterfully shot and organized that it is hard to believe that this is his first film, as Dramas can often be the downfall of many directors as they are unable to draw tension out of the material.
The screenplay by Whanell is gripping and effective. The characters are defined well within the context of their situations as it is vital to the story that information about the characters is slowly released to the audience in order to create and maintain the tension.
“Saw” is a true wonder as instead of being a simple horror film, it is a deeply complex and disturbing film that showcases two talented individuals in a very impressive debut. The images and story of the film stay with you long after the film ends and like it or love it “Saw” is a well crafted film that is not only disturbing, but refreshingly original. My only issue with the film is that it did drag just a bit while leading up to the finale, but that being said, “Saw” is easily the best horror film in many years.
The film is “Saw” and it is a triumph of suspense, horror, and drama that harkens back to the classic work of David Fincher, and dare I say Hitchcock, as it is a bold and daring film, that is a fresh and creative as it is innovative.
The film is written by and features Leigh Whannell, as Adam, a young man who awakens in a dark room in a bathtub filled with water. Although disoriented, Adam soon discovers he is not alone, as he shares the room with another man, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), who like him, is chained at the ankle and trapped in the room.
As bad as this is, there is a dead body in the middle of the room that underscores the peril of the situation. Adam and Lawrence eventually discover audio tapes and a player that indicate that they are being held as they do not appreciate the life that they have and as such, are going to lose it unless they can prove how much they want to live.
Lawrence is told via the taped instructions that if he does not kill Adam by 6:00, then his wife and daughter will be killed and clues are given to indicate where to look in the decrepit room. The fact that Adam and Lawrence are chained and have very limited mobility forces the two of them to work with one another, despite the mistrust Adam has towards Lawrence as he was the one they tape said had to be killed.
Lawrence begins to tell Adam that he thinks he knows who is behind their situation, as there has been a series of murders in the area and he was suspect. Through a series of flashbacks Lawrence informs Adam about the Jigsaw killer, who places victims in perilous situations but provides them with a way out, provided they are willing to take extreme measures to show how much they want to live. The bizarre and gruesome situations lead to the introduction of Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover), who is investigating the grizzly trail left by the killer. In many ways, “Saw” become two movies in one as we learn about the history of the crimes, and the investigation leading up to the present situation between Lawrence and Adam. The film also cleverly guises certain events keeping the audience guessing as to if they happened in the past or are occurring in the present adding to the mystery and suspense.
As the story unfolds we learn more about Adam that underscores the tension and allows new avenues for the story to unfold. I will not spoil the twists and turns of the story but suffice it to say, there are plenty of red herrings and plot twists that will keep the audience guessing and some very creative and shocking twists and turns that culminates in an ending that will become one of the most talked about in film history and is destined to carve a niche in horror history.
Director James Wan, who also created the story, has crafted a visually gripping and disturbing film with a very effective pace that shows ability and talent well beyond his years. The film is so masterfully shot and organized that it is hard to believe that this is his first film, as Dramas can often be the downfall of many directors as they are unable to draw tension out of the material.
The screenplay by Whanell is gripping and effective. The characters are defined well within the context of their situations as it is vital to the story that information about the characters is slowly released to the audience in order to create and maintain the tension.
“Saw” is a true wonder as instead of being a simple horror film, it is a deeply complex and disturbing film that showcases two talented individuals in a very impressive debut. The images and story of the film stay with you long after the film ends and like it or love it “Saw” is a well crafted film that is not only disturbing, but refreshingly original. My only issue with the film is that it did drag just a bit while leading up to the finale, but that being said, “Saw” is easily the best horror film in many years.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Schitt's Creek in TV
Jan 22, 2021
This show was a little off my radar until it went ahead and won 9 Emmys earlier this year. I made a point of adding it to my watchlist, but remained largely unconvinced that it was going to be for me. Not based on anything solid, I just had a feeling.
One season in and I have to admit I find it very easy to watch (often in the background to doing something else) but am still a little on the fence. I can go an entire episode without raising a smile, but there have also been several moments that have had me rolling off my chair. My new instinct about it is that I am gonna need a lot more than the first season under my belt before I develop a true relationship with it. Maybe that was also the thinking of the Emmys, who mostly ignored it for 5 years and then threw everything at in retrospect once they realised it was ending and how fond they had become of it.
Eugene Levy and Maureen O’Hara, as the disfunctuonal parents of two grown up brats forced to slum it in a bumsville town once the family business goes bust, demonstrate terrific comic understanding and timing after years of practice in cringe comedy movies such as Best In Show. The fly on the wall style is not quite The Office, or Parks and Rec, but closest to Arrested Development – which I also struggled with at first, until the joke sunk in.
O’Hara especially, always teetering on the edge of wasted is a joy to watch; just naturally amusing and worth this kind of attention after a long and distinguished career. The kids also have their moments, the pan-sexual man-child David, played by Dan Levy, and the shallow vacuum that is Alexis, played by Annie Murphy, are deliberately annoying at first, but do become strangely endearing over time, a sign of great writing. Levy snr. is more the straight guy in the main, wallowing in pathos and his own ineffectual weaknesses as a father and husband, but also has some great moments here and there.
At this point I can’t honestly say if I will continue to the end, I’m just not that attached to it to face 5 more seasons for sure, but I may dip in from time to time. I do think it is worth a bigger audience than it already has stateside, I’m just not convinced a British / European audience really need it at this point in time, and if it has a time it is probably now or never, as its reference points are very of the moment, 2015-2020, before 2020 became something else entirely.
One season in and I have to admit I find it very easy to watch (often in the background to doing something else) but am still a little on the fence. I can go an entire episode without raising a smile, but there have also been several moments that have had me rolling off my chair. My new instinct about it is that I am gonna need a lot more than the first season under my belt before I develop a true relationship with it. Maybe that was also the thinking of the Emmys, who mostly ignored it for 5 years and then threw everything at in retrospect once they realised it was ending and how fond they had become of it.
Eugene Levy and Maureen O’Hara, as the disfunctuonal parents of two grown up brats forced to slum it in a bumsville town once the family business goes bust, demonstrate terrific comic understanding and timing after years of practice in cringe comedy movies such as Best In Show. The fly on the wall style is not quite The Office, or Parks and Rec, but closest to Arrested Development – which I also struggled with at first, until the joke sunk in.
O’Hara especially, always teetering on the edge of wasted is a joy to watch; just naturally amusing and worth this kind of attention after a long and distinguished career. The kids also have their moments, the pan-sexual man-child David, played by Dan Levy, and the shallow vacuum that is Alexis, played by Annie Murphy, are deliberately annoying at first, but do become strangely endearing over time, a sign of great writing. Levy snr. is more the straight guy in the main, wallowing in pathos and his own ineffectual weaknesses as a father and husband, but also has some great moments here and there.
At this point I can’t honestly say if I will continue to the end, I’m just not that attached to it to face 5 more seasons for sure, but I may dip in from time to time. I do think it is worth a bigger audience than it already has stateside, I’m just not convinced a British / European audience really need it at this point in time, and if it has a time it is probably now or never, as its reference points are very of the moment, 2015-2020, before 2020 became something else entirely.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Weekend at Bernie's (1989) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Could Have Been Better
Two friends show up at their boss Bernie's beachhouse for a weekend retreat only to find Bernie dead. To maintain innocence, they decide to go through with the weekend while hiding Bernie in plain sight for all to see.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Duchess Deal in Books
Jun 6, 2019
^^ Returning from the war, scarred Duke of Ashbury decides he needs an heir, but that would mean a wife and she’d have to look upon his beastly war wounds, which would never do. So when he sets his sights on the vicar’s daughter Emma Gladstone and proposes a marriage of convenience deal, he begins to put some rules into place to protect her (or maybe himself) from seeing his disfigured body.
^^ But Emma is no fool, and insists on some rules of her own. She can see that beneath the scars, bad temper and his awfully stubborn ways, he’s quite simply just a lonely man needing companionship, and no different to her. Surely beauty is only skin deep and there’s much more to him than outward appearances.
^^ Oh, what a lovely story this is. Yes, on the surface this is what I’d call a sweet romance; a poor girl meets rich Duke love story. But deep down, below the surface of the title and cover, I uncovered some hidden gems. It’s a story of two lost souls trying to make the best of what they feel they have left to offer.
^^ The Duke is a great character, and yes, he does have his faults, and I’m not talking his appearance, but can he really be blamed after what he’s been through? The war has left the Duke scarred, physically and mentally. He may be a hero on the battlefield, but with his scars on show he’s found himself to be rather intimidating to others; children scream, dogs howl, honestly, if no one can bear to look at him, how is he ever going to produce an heir?
^^ Then we meet Emma, wise before her years, and not a woman to be messed around. But if that’s so, why would Emma choose to go into a loveless marriage with a man who only wants her for an heir? He’s already made it totally clear they’ll never have to sleep in the same bed ever again after their child is born. What on earth could possibly be in it for her? Well, maybe deep down, Emma’s not so confident after all. Perhaps, this wealthy Duke may be her last chance to have a child, and gain some security into her life. After all, if her father said “No decent man would ever want you!” as he banished her from their house, then maybe there’s some truth to it?
^^ I found myself thinking this is very much a charming Beauty and the Beast story. The way Emma and Ash get to know each other is both realistic and so endearing. This has some cracking dialogue with several laugh out loud moments, which made this such an enjoyable, fast read. I can’t wait to read more like this from Mills and Boon.
^^ Oh and I nearly forgot. It’s got it’s sexy bits in it too, and they are totally fitting and in line with this time period. What did make me smile, (and I thought it was a nice touch) was how, at the beginning of the book, there is a lovely dedication from the author (also once a vicar’s daughter) thanking her dad for being nothing like her character Emma’s father. Tessa Dare also mentions which chapters her father should miss out when reading. Don’t you realise that these pages will be where everyone visits first? ?
Overall: This is a charming Beauty and the Beast story, about love, honesty and mistakingly becoming the Monster of Mayfair! (Hilarious).
^^ But Emma is no fool, and insists on some rules of her own. She can see that beneath the scars, bad temper and his awfully stubborn ways, he’s quite simply just a lonely man needing companionship, and no different to her. Surely beauty is only skin deep and there’s much more to him than outward appearances.
^^ Oh, what a lovely story this is. Yes, on the surface this is what I’d call a sweet romance; a poor girl meets rich Duke love story. But deep down, below the surface of the title and cover, I uncovered some hidden gems. It’s a story of two lost souls trying to make the best of what they feel they have left to offer.
^^ The Duke is a great character, and yes, he does have his faults, and I’m not talking his appearance, but can he really be blamed after what he’s been through? The war has left the Duke scarred, physically and mentally. He may be a hero on the battlefield, but with his scars on show he’s found himself to be rather intimidating to others; children scream, dogs howl, honestly, if no one can bear to look at him, how is he ever going to produce an heir?
^^ Then we meet Emma, wise before her years, and not a woman to be messed around. But if that’s so, why would Emma choose to go into a loveless marriage with a man who only wants her for an heir? He’s already made it totally clear they’ll never have to sleep in the same bed ever again after their child is born. What on earth could possibly be in it for her? Well, maybe deep down, Emma’s not so confident after all. Perhaps, this wealthy Duke may be her last chance to have a child, and gain some security into her life. After all, if her father said “No decent man would ever want you!” as he banished her from their house, then maybe there’s some truth to it?
^^ I found myself thinking this is very much a charming Beauty and the Beast story. The way Emma and Ash get to know each other is both realistic and so endearing. This has some cracking dialogue with several laugh out loud moments, which made this such an enjoyable, fast read. I can’t wait to read more like this from Mills and Boon.
^^ Oh and I nearly forgot. It’s got it’s sexy bits in it too, and they are totally fitting and in line with this time period. What did make me smile, (and I thought it was a nice touch) was how, at the beginning of the book, there is a lovely dedication from the author (also once a vicar’s daughter) thanking her dad for being nothing like her character Emma’s father. Tessa Dare also mentions which chapters her father should miss out when reading. Don’t you realise that these pages will be where everyone visits first? ?
Overall: This is a charming Beauty and the Beast story, about love, honesty and mistakingly becoming the Monster of Mayfair! (Hilarious).
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Beast: A Tale of Love and Revenge in Books
Jul 16, 2018
Almost ruined my childhood favorite
One of my favorite books while I was growing up was the Beauty and the Beast. I usually love retellings,as they show me a different side of the story that might be, that I have never considered before. This book, however, almost ruined it all for me. The only reason it didn't was because I wouldn't let one bad retelling to ruin my childhood favorite!
The story is about Lucie, who is a servant in Jean Leup's palace. Through Lucie's story, we see Jean Leup as a horrible person who only cares about money and the respect he received from his aristocratic community. He treats the servants badly and doesn't even bother to look at them.
Lucie likes the thought of him. He is a very handsome man, and all she dreams about is for him to notice her. And one day, he does. And something really bad happens. Jean Leup does something horrible to Lucie.
[SPOILER - PLEASE CONTINUE CAUTIOUSLY]
He rapes her. And not only that this scene was very disturbing, it was also three pages long, with broad descriptions and it made be cringe badly. It made me hate everything and this was the part where I almost quit on reading this book.
[SPOILER FINISHED - YOU CAN CONTINUE READING]
After this big spoiler scene, the first reaction Lucie has is to kill herself. I am aware that this was a huge trauma for her, and people react differently, but if the author gives me this as a solution to her problem, do I want to continue reading? Is this really the lesson she learns?
With a bit of help of magic and wisdom words, she decides that now she wants for Jean Leup to suffer, and she wants to be able to see this happen. Suddenly, wish becomes a reality and the next thing we know, she is a candle that can't move, and Jean Leup has turned into a Beast.
Do you get the Beauty and the Beast reference now? We see the story from the candle's point of view, who is Lucie.
Well - not really!
Because here's the twist - the Beast doesn't remember what happened before. He doesn't know he was Jean Leup. He doesn't know he was bad in the past. The Beast is good by default, and a bit sad that he's alone in a big castle. So I have to ask again - Where is the lesson? Where is the punishment? If he can't remember he was bad, he'll never learn why he is a Beast.
To continue and shorten the story - Lucie (the candle) can talk to the Beast through her mind. The Beauty (Rose) comes to the castle and the story goes on. Lucie decides that she is in love with the Beast, and I won't reveal the rest, in case you want to read the book and see for yourself.
Now - I know that the author's point wasn't the lesson that the Beast learns as in the original story. Her point was to tell the story of the Beast, and Lucie, and how this tale can have a different plot, and ending, and back story. But I really believe that this was the wrong way of saying it, and it didn't leave a clear message.
The writing was poor, and it went from one moment to another, leaving me there in the middle, wondering what happened. One scene begins, and another starts before anything is finished. It was disorientated, and I felt lost in the first 40 pages.
This is a no from me, and I will give it 2 stars because I managed to finish it.
Thanks to Candlewick Press for providing me with an ARC e-copy via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
The story is about Lucie, who is a servant in Jean Leup's palace. Through Lucie's story, we see Jean Leup as a horrible person who only cares about money and the respect he received from his aristocratic community. He treats the servants badly and doesn't even bother to look at them.
Lucie likes the thought of him. He is a very handsome man, and all she dreams about is for him to notice her. And one day, he does. And something really bad happens. Jean Leup does something horrible to Lucie.
[SPOILER - PLEASE CONTINUE CAUTIOUSLY]
He rapes her. And not only that this scene was very disturbing, it was also three pages long, with broad descriptions and it made be cringe badly. It made me hate everything and this was the part where I almost quit on reading this book.
[SPOILER FINISHED - YOU CAN CONTINUE READING]
After this big spoiler scene, the first reaction Lucie has is to kill herself. I am aware that this was a huge trauma for her, and people react differently, but if the author gives me this as a solution to her problem, do I want to continue reading? Is this really the lesson she learns?
With a bit of help of magic and wisdom words, she decides that now she wants for Jean Leup to suffer, and she wants to be able to see this happen. Suddenly, wish becomes a reality and the next thing we know, she is a candle that can't move, and Jean Leup has turned into a Beast.
Do you get the Beauty and the Beast reference now? We see the story from the candle's point of view, who is Lucie.
Well - not really!
Because here's the twist - the Beast doesn't remember what happened before. He doesn't know he was Jean Leup. He doesn't know he was bad in the past. The Beast is good by default, and a bit sad that he's alone in a big castle. So I have to ask again - Where is the lesson? Where is the punishment? If he can't remember he was bad, he'll never learn why he is a Beast.
To continue and shorten the story - Lucie (the candle) can talk to the Beast through her mind. The Beauty (Rose) comes to the castle and the story goes on. Lucie decides that she is in love with the Beast, and I won't reveal the rest, in case you want to read the book and see for yourself.
Now - I know that the author's point wasn't the lesson that the Beast learns as in the original story. Her point was to tell the story of the Beast, and Lucie, and how this tale can have a different plot, and ending, and back story. But I really believe that this was the wrong way of saying it, and it didn't leave a clear message.
The writing was poor, and it went from one moment to another, leaving me there in the middle, wondering what happened. One scene begins, and another starts before anything is finished. It was disorientated, and I felt lost in the first 40 pages.
This is a no from me, and I will give it 2 stars because I managed to finish it.
Thanks to Candlewick Press for providing me with an ARC e-copy via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
PICKA - Dating, Meet, Chat
Dating, Lifestyle and Social Networking
1.5
Rate It
App
PICKA! One of the best dating apps launched in 2017. A new, thrilling location based free dating...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 22, 2019
Verdict: Franchise Hasn’t Fallen
Story: Angel Has Fallen starts when Mike banning (Butler) is the only survivor of a drone attack on President Allan Trumbull (Freeman), the rest of the team are killed and Mike has been framed for the assassination attempt. FBI agent Helen Thompson (Smith) is investigating the case, with Mike looking cut and dry to have been the man behind it, but when Mike escapes, he sets out to prove his innocence.
Mike turns to his estranged father Clay (Nolte) as he looks to discover why his old friend an private contractor Wade Jennings (Huston) has set him up and how he can prove his isn’t involved despite a nationwide manhunt for him.
Thoughts on Angel Has Fallen
Characters – Mike Banning is still a senior secret service man, playing righthand to the President, he has been keeping his injuries secret, which is nice to see an action man actually suffering injuries, instead of just being fine, like most action stars. He does his duty saving the President from an attack, only to find himself framed. When the people come to finish the job on Banning, he escapes and uses all his training to allude and search for a way to prove his innocence. Allan Trumbull is now the President, stepping up from his role as the Vice in the previous two outings, he is looking to change certain ideas, though he spends most of his film in a coma after the attack, he is the only other witness who could defend Mike’s involvement too. Wade Jennings is the private military contractor and old military buddy of Mike’s, he has framed him and is using his expertly trained team to hunt him down and finish off the job. Leah is the wife of Mike’s she is trying to keep him from working now they have a child and must deal with the consequences of seeing the name dragged through the dirt. FBI Agent Helen Thompson is trying to put the pieces together, seeing Mike as the prime suspect, she just wants the case closed without anybody else being hurt. Clay Banning is the estranged father of Mike’s he has been off the grid for years because of his own trauma from his time in the war, he is the only person Mike knows he can turn too.
Performances – Gerard Butler is great in the leading role, he is always going to be a bankable star when it comes to action roles and this is no different. Morgan Freeman does everything you would expect from a President role, without needing to do much. Piper Perabo takes over from Radha Mitchell in the wife role, which doesn’t have much to do if we are being honest. Danny Huston is one of these actors that you know is always going to be a villain, he does everything we know he can do in this role. Nick Nolte is a lot of fun, bringing his trademark estranged father role to the big screen once again, he gets a few laughs in too.
Story – The story here sees Mike Banning being framed for the assassination attempt of the President, the figure that he has been guarding for years and he must go off the grid to prove who was really behind it. The story is one that is great to watch for action, but if you have seen the previous instalments of the franchise, you will be left asking a few questions. First what happened to President Benjamin Asher, we have zero mention of him, secondly, how is nobody on Mike’s side after all he has done in the past, like seriously, he pretty much saved the President against impossible odds twice. While this question could be answered with the number of pieces of evidence placed on him, it still doesn’t seem to fit the character these people have created. Away from these questions, we must say this does build on the scale of the previous film’s stories, which is good because it does feel different, which each film does do. We could easily watch this story as a single film too and the fact that we do touch on the physical injuries that Mike has suffered through his job, does show a vulnerable action character.
Action – The action is big, we might not have the large scale opening attack, but once we get into the military formations ideas, we get plenty of tactical shootings.
Settings – The film does build on the settings, with the first one being one building, the second being one city, now we have a nationwide hunt.
Special Effects – The effects, well this has been an issue for the franchise all along, but the green screen scenes are so clear to see it almost feels like they didn’t finish the job yet.
Scene of the Movie – Mike and Clay have an escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No mention of former President Benjamin Asher, like what happened here?
Final Thoughts – This is a action sequel that does enough different to make it feel fresh even if certain parts of the story feels too farfetched, it does continue to have a 24 vibe to everything, but it is well for a watch if you have seen the franchise or not.
Overall: Trilogy that hasn’t Fallen.
Story: Angel Has Fallen starts when Mike banning (Butler) is the only survivor of a drone attack on President Allan Trumbull (Freeman), the rest of the team are killed and Mike has been framed for the assassination attempt. FBI agent Helen Thompson (Smith) is investigating the case, with Mike looking cut and dry to have been the man behind it, but when Mike escapes, he sets out to prove his innocence.
Mike turns to his estranged father Clay (Nolte) as he looks to discover why his old friend an private contractor Wade Jennings (Huston) has set him up and how he can prove his isn’t involved despite a nationwide manhunt for him.
Thoughts on Angel Has Fallen
Characters – Mike Banning is still a senior secret service man, playing righthand to the President, he has been keeping his injuries secret, which is nice to see an action man actually suffering injuries, instead of just being fine, like most action stars. He does his duty saving the President from an attack, only to find himself framed. When the people come to finish the job on Banning, he escapes and uses all his training to allude and search for a way to prove his innocence. Allan Trumbull is now the President, stepping up from his role as the Vice in the previous two outings, he is looking to change certain ideas, though he spends most of his film in a coma after the attack, he is the only other witness who could defend Mike’s involvement too. Wade Jennings is the private military contractor and old military buddy of Mike’s, he has framed him and is using his expertly trained team to hunt him down and finish off the job. Leah is the wife of Mike’s she is trying to keep him from working now they have a child and must deal with the consequences of seeing the name dragged through the dirt. FBI Agent Helen Thompson is trying to put the pieces together, seeing Mike as the prime suspect, she just wants the case closed without anybody else being hurt. Clay Banning is the estranged father of Mike’s he has been off the grid for years because of his own trauma from his time in the war, he is the only person Mike knows he can turn too.
Performances – Gerard Butler is great in the leading role, he is always going to be a bankable star when it comes to action roles and this is no different. Morgan Freeman does everything you would expect from a President role, without needing to do much. Piper Perabo takes over from Radha Mitchell in the wife role, which doesn’t have much to do if we are being honest. Danny Huston is one of these actors that you know is always going to be a villain, he does everything we know he can do in this role. Nick Nolte is a lot of fun, bringing his trademark estranged father role to the big screen once again, he gets a few laughs in too.
Story – The story here sees Mike Banning being framed for the assassination attempt of the President, the figure that he has been guarding for years and he must go off the grid to prove who was really behind it. The story is one that is great to watch for action, but if you have seen the previous instalments of the franchise, you will be left asking a few questions. First what happened to President Benjamin Asher, we have zero mention of him, secondly, how is nobody on Mike’s side after all he has done in the past, like seriously, he pretty much saved the President against impossible odds twice. While this question could be answered with the number of pieces of evidence placed on him, it still doesn’t seem to fit the character these people have created. Away from these questions, we must say this does build on the scale of the previous film’s stories, which is good because it does feel different, which each film does do. We could easily watch this story as a single film too and the fact that we do touch on the physical injuries that Mike has suffered through his job, does show a vulnerable action character.
Action – The action is big, we might not have the large scale opening attack, but once we get into the military formations ideas, we get plenty of tactical shootings.
Settings – The film does build on the settings, with the first one being one building, the second being one city, now we have a nationwide hunt.
Special Effects – The effects, well this has been an issue for the franchise all along, but the green screen scenes are so clear to see it almost feels like they didn’t finish the job yet.
Scene of the Movie – Mike and Clay have an escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No mention of former President Benjamin Asher, like what happened here?
Final Thoughts – This is a action sequel that does enough different to make it feel fresh even if certain parts of the story feels too farfetched, it does continue to have a 24 vibe to everything, but it is well for a watch if you have seen the franchise or not.
Overall: Trilogy that hasn’t Fallen.