Search
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Burned (House of Night, #7) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I liked this book a bit more than the previous book in the series simply because it looks like some of the characters are maturing passed some of their more annoying tweeny quirks and developing some depth. Stevie Rae always bugged me in previous books for her cliche hick-like speech and tastes in clothes, etc., but in this book, she starts to discover that the lines between good and evil are sometimes much harder to discern as she tries to juggle her relationship with Rephaim and still be what everyone else in her life wants her to be. She does this by lying, lying, lying, which is very bad, but at least she is taking risks to truly do the right thing, even if she is going about it the very wrong way. What did bug me was that the way she was caught between Dallas and Rephaim felt like the authors were attempting to make her be some kind of Zoey copycat, and the way Stevie Rae was handling the situation so poorly pretty much made it a forgone conclusion that whomever she hurt more would be the one going evil, making her the responsible party, even though the guy making the choice should be responsible for his own decisions.
I also like the maturity that James Stark reaches in his quest to save Zoey. While it is cliche to say that love conquers all, his love for her forces him to grow up and be a man, instead of just a petty, jealous, hormonal teen. The lengths he goes to save her could put a few grown men to shame, and if she ever rejects him in future books for any reason at all, she does not deserve him.
On the flip side, Zoey's other friends, i. e. Damien, Jack, and the twins are barely even mentioned throughout the entire book, except to provide color for the background or some comic relief. I don't really miss them, either, as their antics are so formulaic as to make me cringe every time I read about them.
I am undecided as to whether I like Aphrodite's character. While she does not seem to be growing in maturity very much - as in losing her bitchiness - she does seem to be coming to terms with how she appears to others. At the same time, she is learning to wield her arrogance with purpose as she gains the title of Prophetess and show some true emotion for her friends.
I really hope that this series wraps up soon, as this plot feels like it is spiraling out of control with all of the loose ends, unexplained pieces, and growing cast list that simply can not be given enough attention to detail in every single book, even with the random deaths of several characters in a single book.
I also like the maturity that James Stark reaches in his quest to save Zoey. While it is cliche to say that love conquers all, his love for her forces him to grow up and be a man, instead of just a petty, jealous, hormonal teen. The lengths he goes to save her could put a few grown men to shame, and if she ever rejects him in future books for any reason at all, she does not deserve him.
On the flip side, Zoey's other friends, i. e. Damien, Jack, and the twins are barely even mentioned throughout the entire book, except to provide color for the background or some comic relief. I don't really miss them, either, as their antics are so formulaic as to make me cringe every time I read about them.
I am undecided as to whether I like Aphrodite's character. While she does not seem to be growing in maturity very much - as in losing her bitchiness - she does seem to be coming to terms with how she appears to others. At the same time, she is learning to wield her arrogance with purpose as she gains the title of Prophetess and show some true emotion for her friends.
I really hope that this series wraps up soon, as this plot feels like it is spiraling out of control with all of the loose ends, unexplained pieces, and growing cast list that simply can not be given enough attention to detail in every single book, even with the random deaths of several characters in a single book.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Little Girl Gone (An Afton Tangler Thriller #1) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Afton Tangler is halfway up a cold, icy mountain ledge when the call comes in: a three-month old baby, Elizabeth Ann, has vanished, taken from her home in the middle of the night. The little girl's babysitter is in the hospital after being assaulted, and Elizabeth Ann's wealthy parents are frantic. Afton, a family liaison officer for the Minneapolis Police Department, must console the baby's parents, Susan and Richard Darden. Besides her ice climbing hobby, Afton is also an aspiring police officer, so when the lead detective on the case, Max, has her tag along, she does, trying to untangle the weird web of clues that accompanies this sad case. Who was the strange man, pretending to deliver a pizza, who attacked the babysitter? Is he connected to a woman at a doll show that interacted with Susan? Is Richard's recent job switch a factor? Will a ransom call come in? As Afton and Max race to find Elizabeth Ann, the web only thickens, and they become more frantic to find Elizabeth Ann before it's too late.
This was an interesting mystery novel. I won't lie: the writing is wooden and clunky to say the least. It's certainly not the smoothly written thriller of a say a Tana French or Mary Kubica, whose books I've recently read. Further, the plot is really preposterous at times, and it's crazy to watch Afton, who should really be sitting at a desk and chatting with families, out solving crimes, chasing bad guys, and scaling cliffs (seriously). That being said, you can't help develop but an affinity for Ms. Afton Tangler. She's amazingly good at untangling a mystery (a little too good at times), but she's also incredibly plucky and genuine. She's like a Melissa McCarthy character in "Spy" or "Bridesmaids" - she's so herself that you fall for her in spite of yourself.
I also always find it impressive when authors can make a book suspenseful even when we know who "did it" from the beginning. [b:Little Girl Gone|27209410|Little Girl Gone|Gerry Schmitt|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1463571368s/27209410.jpg|47250892] is told from the ever-popular multi-character POV, so we hear from Afton, but also Susan, and several characters related to the crime itself. So while we see the crime unfold and know exactly who took the Elizabeth Ann, Schmitt still does a good job of making the book exciting as Afton and Max attempt to find the little girl and reunite her with her parents. Because of that, plus Afton's tenacious character, I will still give this one 3 stars, despite some of the crazy plot holes and the occasional less than stellar writing.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you); it is available everywhere as of 07/05/2016.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
This was an interesting mystery novel. I won't lie: the writing is wooden and clunky to say the least. It's certainly not the smoothly written thriller of a say a Tana French or Mary Kubica, whose books I've recently read. Further, the plot is really preposterous at times, and it's crazy to watch Afton, who should really be sitting at a desk and chatting with families, out solving crimes, chasing bad guys, and scaling cliffs (seriously). That being said, you can't help develop but an affinity for Ms. Afton Tangler. She's amazingly good at untangling a mystery (a little too good at times), but she's also incredibly plucky and genuine. She's like a Melissa McCarthy character in "Spy" or "Bridesmaids" - she's so herself that you fall for her in spite of yourself.
I also always find it impressive when authors can make a book suspenseful even when we know who "did it" from the beginning. [b:Little Girl Gone|27209410|Little Girl Gone|Gerry Schmitt|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1463571368s/27209410.jpg|47250892] is told from the ever-popular multi-character POV, so we hear from Afton, but also Susan, and several characters related to the crime itself. So while we see the crime unfold and know exactly who took the Elizabeth Ann, Schmitt still does a good job of making the book exciting as Afton and Max attempt to find the little girl and reunite her with her parents. Because of that, plus Afton's tenacious character, I will still give this one 3 stars, despite some of the crazy plot holes and the occasional less than stellar writing.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you); it is available everywhere as of 07/05/2016.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Aug 14, 2018
The acting is awful - from everyone (1 more)
The script is terrible
Fun action movie
If you've seen any of the posters or trailers for The Meg, you know exactly what you're in for. It's basically Jason Statham versus a big ass prehistoric shark, and that's pretty much all you need to know. If you're expecting a decent script, without any clichés, or any kind of decent acting for that matter, then you're likely to be disappointed. This movie pretty much does what it says on the tin.
Jason Statham stars as Jonas Taylor, currently retired from deep sea diving hero work and living a chilled life in Thailand, beer permanently in his hand. Five years earlier, Jonas was involved in an underwater operation which ended badly - a mysterious sea creature put a huge dent in the side of a submersible and Jonas had to make the painful decision to leave some men behind in order to save the rest. But when a hi-tech marine research station sends a crew down more than 10,000 metres into the ocean, beyond an icy barrier of hydrogen sulphide and into unexplored waters, they encounter a 70ft megalodon and find themselves trapped. Time for Jonas, the only man capable of rescuing them, to be lured out out of retirement. Unfortunately though, as the submersibles return to the surface, they unknowingly create a thermal pathway through the icy cold layer, and the meg follows them back up.
By this point we're nearly half way through the movie, and we've so far only caught a couple of glimpses of the meg and the kind of damage it can cause. The rest of the time up until now has been filled with introducing us to a large number of dull characters, both on the research station and the submersible. To be fair though, the script is terrible - full of clichés and failed attempts at humour and one-liners, but even then the delivery from literally everyone involved is pretty awful, the acting on show here is shocking. When things do kick off with the shark though, it's less talk more action, and that's when the film is at its most enjoyable.
Many of the action scenes are, as you'd expect, ridiculous, over the top and wildly enjoyable. Jonas tries 'sneaking up' on the meg in order to fire it with a tracking dart, only for the meg to give chase as Jonas is rapidly winched back in, swerving to avoid the huge jaws. Later on, the meg finds its way to a densely populated beach. Hundreds of nicely arranged bathers in their rubber rings, men rolling around in zorbs, people on jet skis - the perfect scenario for mass panic and carnage.
Overall, this is a good fun action movie which really should have focused a little more on a tighter script. Still worth a watch though.
Jason Statham stars as Jonas Taylor, currently retired from deep sea diving hero work and living a chilled life in Thailand, beer permanently in his hand. Five years earlier, Jonas was involved in an underwater operation which ended badly - a mysterious sea creature put a huge dent in the side of a submersible and Jonas had to make the painful decision to leave some men behind in order to save the rest. But when a hi-tech marine research station sends a crew down more than 10,000 metres into the ocean, beyond an icy barrier of hydrogen sulphide and into unexplored waters, they encounter a 70ft megalodon and find themselves trapped. Time for Jonas, the only man capable of rescuing them, to be lured out out of retirement. Unfortunately though, as the submersibles return to the surface, they unknowingly create a thermal pathway through the icy cold layer, and the meg follows them back up.
By this point we're nearly half way through the movie, and we've so far only caught a couple of glimpses of the meg and the kind of damage it can cause. The rest of the time up until now has been filled with introducing us to a large number of dull characters, both on the research station and the submersible. To be fair though, the script is terrible - full of clichés and failed attempts at humour and one-liners, but even then the delivery from literally everyone involved is pretty awful, the acting on show here is shocking. When things do kick off with the shark though, it's less talk more action, and that's when the film is at its most enjoyable.
Many of the action scenes are, as you'd expect, ridiculous, over the top and wildly enjoyable. Jonas tries 'sneaking up' on the meg in order to fire it with a tracking dart, only for the meg to give chase as Jonas is rapidly winched back in, swerving to avoid the huge jaws. Later on, the meg finds its way to a densely populated beach. Hundreds of nicely arranged bathers in their rubber rings, men rolling around in zorbs, people on jet skis - the perfect scenario for mass panic and carnage.
Overall, this is a good fun action movie which really should have focused a little more on a tighter script. Still worth a watch though.
Bladelords - fighting revolution
Games and Entertainment
App
Reveal your inner fighter in this 3D fighting game! Play up to 16 fighters and upgrade their...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Casino Royale (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In an effort to breathe life into franchises, Hollywood, has looked to remaking franchises instead of adding sequels. This is a stark contrast to remaking a film 10-20 years after the original film appeared, rather the new trend is to start series anew, in effect wiping away the previous history and continuity of the past films in the series.
The idea is that rather than let several years pass in a series, or creating another sequel, filmmaker will go back to the beginning and start anew, in order to propel the franchise forward.
While remakes are nothing new in Hollywood, the idea to revamp series that recently had sequels is gaining ground. With the classic Horror film “Halloween” about to be remade, it seems that Hollywood is taking a long hard look at this new trend.
Perhaps the biggest example of this trend is in the new James Bond film Casino Royale, which introduces Daniel Craig as the new 007. The film takes the controversial twist to show the first mission of Bond and how he earned the rank of 00.
The twist is that the film takes place in the modern day and for the most part, casts aside all previous history and continuity that has been established by decades of Bond films.
The story involves bond on the trail of a Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man who makes his living laundering money for various insurgents thus providing them cash for their terrorist and military missions.
In exotic locales ranging from the Caribbean to Montenegro Bond soon finds himself facing off against Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game in order to defeat Le Chiffre and thus cripple him and his network.
Of course there are plenty of subplots, and some great action sequences especially a thrilling chase in a construction site and a break neck chase in an airport that underscores that the series still have plenty of life in it and always sets the standards for stunt work in action films.
That being said the film has its issues. First, it is to long, and lengthy sequences past without action or dynamic tension. I know this is a film based on a card game, but I come to a Bond film expecting action, sex, and thrills, not a series of poker games that cover nearly 30 minutes with precious little action between them.
In addition, there is precious little romance in the film. Sure there are gorgeous women and Bond never fails to charm them, but, how many times has Bond ever passed up spending the night with a woman, simply to get out of town fast to pursue a lead. I am sure Sean Connery’s Bond would have found the time to do both with his typical style.
This is not to say that Craig is bad in his role as he does a darker and much grittier Bond than we have previously films which will serve the franchise well in the future.
What concerns me most is that from the books and all previous history, Bond is an orphan of noble birth and is a member of upper society and radiates class, sophistication and nobility, and this was evident from his early years all through his recruitment from the Royal Navy into the ranks of espionage.
Craig’s Bond does not show these qualities but rather comes across as a common Joe who is playing the part of a heavy. The appeal of Bond is underscored by the fact that he is a suave individual who can bend a person to his will as easily as he can kill without mercy or regret.
While I do not like the decision to remake the franchise, I will say that the film was much better than I expected it to be and is one of the better Bonds in recent years. Here is hoping that for the next time out, the reigns are loosed on Craig so we can allow him to interpret Bond in a way that is original and fresh, yet stays true to the source material and history of the character.
The idea is that rather than let several years pass in a series, or creating another sequel, filmmaker will go back to the beginning and start anew, in order to propel the franchise forward.
While remakes are nothing new in Hollywood, the idea to revamp series that recently had sequels is gaining ground. With the classic Horror film “Halloween” about to be remade, it seems that Hollywood is taking a long hard look at this new trend.
Perhaps the biggest example of this trend is in the new James Bond film Casino Royale, which introduces Daniel Craig as the new 007. The film takes the controversial twist to show the first mission of Bond and how he earned the rank of 00.
The twist is that the film takes place in the modern day and for the most part, casts aside all previous history and continuity that has been established by decades of Bond films.
The story involves bond on the trail of a Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man who makes his living laundering money for various insurgents thus providing them cash for their terrorist and military missions.
In exotic locales ranging from the Caribbean to Montenegro Bond soon finds himself facing off against Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game in order to defeat Le Chiffre and thus cripple him and his network.
Of course there are plenty of subplots, and some great action sequences especially a thrilling chase in a construction site and a break neck chase in an airport that underscores that the series still have plenty of life in it and always sets the standards for stunt work in action films.
That being said the film has its issues. First, it is to long, and lengthy sequences past without action or dynamic tension. I know this is a film based on a card game, but I come to a Bond film expecting action, sex, and thrills, not a series of poker games that cover nearly 30 minutes with precious little action between them.
In addition, there is precious little romance in the film. Sure there are gorgeous women and Bond never fails to charm them, but, how many times has Bond ever passed up spending the night with a woman, simply to get out of town fast to pursue a lead. I am sure Sean Connery’s Bond would have found the time to do both with his typical style.
This is not to say that Craig is bad in his role as he does a darker and much grittier Bond than we have previously films which will serve the franchise well in the future.
What concerns me most is that from the books and all previous history, Bond is an orphan of noble birth and is a member of upper society and radiates class, sophistication and nobility, and this was evident from his early years all through his recruitment from the Royal Navy into the ranks of espionage.
Craig’s Bond does not show these qualities but rather comes across as a common Joe who is playing the part of a heavy. The appeal of Bond is underscored by the fact that he is a suave individual who can bend a person to his will as easily as he can kill without mercy or regret.
While I do not like the decision to remake the franchise, I will say that the film was much better than I expected it to be and is one of the better Bonds in recent years. Here is hoping that for the next time out, the reigns are loosed on Craig so we can allow him to interpret Bond in a way that is original and fresh, yet stays true to the source material and history of the character.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated WandaVision in TV
Mar 7, 2021
A welcome return to the MCU
WandaVision is the latest Marvel series to hit the small screen, arriving in a flood of hype as the first official series to tie in with the rest of the MCU. Initially I hadn’t been interested in this after struggling to enjoy previous series, however after discovering that everyone I know was watching this, FOMO and the fact that we haven’t had a new MCU release since Phase 3 wrapped up with 2019’s Spider-Man: Far From Home, has prompted me to give this a go. And I’m rather glad I did.
WandaVision is set not long after the events of Endgame, and follows Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) as they live an idyllic suburban life in the small town of Westview. However all is not as it seems; Wanda and Vision appear to be starring in their own 1950s style sitcom, as a odd couple with superpowers trying to blend in with the neighbours, including nosy Agnes (Kathryn Hahn) and committee leader Dotty (Emma Caulfield). Strange things soon start happening, and as Wanda and Vision become increasingly confused and suspicious about their new life, outside of Westfield agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), Dr Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and Captain Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) are also trying to figure out what’s going on.
Setting WandaVision in the style of various popular sitcoms from the 1950s onwards is a genius move. BeWitched, I Love Lucy, Malcolm in the Middle and Modern Family to name but a few of the obvious influences on show here, and this changing sitcom style really works and blends very well with the super powered action we know and love from the MCU. I’ll admit that I’m not a massive fan of sitcoms in general and my knowledge of older ones pre-1990 is limited at best, however even I could appreciate the love and care that has gone in to crafting this. It looks amazing and feels so authentic, from everything to the set design, costumes and change in aspect ratio.
It is of course helped by the stellar performances by Elizabeth Olsen. In the MCU so far Wanda has been rather sidelined and Olsen has been given little chance to shine. However she is undoubtedly the star of WandaVision and has been given ample opportunity to show off her versatility and talents, and she certainly does. We see a side of Wanda we’ve never seen before and Olsen’s ability to transform into each decade’s sitcom character is brilliant to watch. It’s a shame then that Bettany’s Vision doesn’t quite match up. No matter the decade, Vision never really seems to change much and while he is funny on occasion, I’m not entirely convinced that seeing more of Vision is a good thing. He’s always been the aloof synthezoid and this may have made him a little too ‘human’. However that said, it was still nice to see a lot more of Bettany than we have done in a while.
Once you get over the sitcom styling, the first couple of episodes are quite slow and had it continued in this vein I may have struggling to keep interested. However in typical Marvel style, it soon picks up and immerses us into the full MCU experience I was expecting. While I don’t want to say much about the plot, from episode 3 onwards I was hooked and the story never felt drawn out, and this wasn’t just due to the short half hour episodes. Unravelling the world of WandaVision was hugely enjoyable and one particular character reappearance in episode 5 had me almost squealing in geeky happiness. The only thing WandaVision is really lacking is the humour and camaraderie that have made the rest of the MCU films into what we love best. Yes there is humour and fun, but this mostly comes from Woo and Darcy, and I think it’s noticeable that the funnier Avengers are missing.
For me, WandaVision isn’t perfect however it was still hugely enjoyable and has definitely given me a new found appreciation for Wanda as a character. And mor important of all, it’s filled a rather large Marvel shaped hole brought on by coronavirus. Bring on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
WandaVision is set not long after the events of Endgame, and follows Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) as they live an idyllic suburban life in the small town of Westview. However all is not as it seems; Wanda and Vision appear to be starring in their own 1950s style sitcom, as a odd couple with superpowers trying to blend in with the neighbours, including nosy Agnes (Kathryn Hahn) and committee leader Dotty (Emma Caulfield). Strange things soon start happening, and as Wanda and Vision become increasingly confused and suspicious about their new life, outside of Westfield agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), Dr Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and Captain Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) are also trying to figure out what’s going on.
Setting WandaVision in the style of various popular sitcoms from the 1950s onwards is a genius move. BeWitched, I Love Lucy, Malcolm in the Middle and Modern Family to name but a few of the obvious influences on show here, and this changing sitcom style really works and blends very well with the super powered action we know and love from the MCU. I’ll admit that I’m not a massive fan of sitcoms in general and my knowledge of older ones pre-1990 is limited at best, however even I could appreciate the love and care that has gone in to crafting this. It looks amazing and feels so authentic, from everything to the set design, costumes and change in aspect ratio.
It is of course helped by the stellar performances by Elizabeth Olsen. In the MCU so far Wanda has been rather sidelined and Olsen has been given little chance to shine. However she is undoubtedly the star of WandaVision and has been given ample opportunity to show off her versatility and talents, and she certainly does. We see a side of Wanda we’ve never seen before and Olsen’s ability to transform into each decade’s sitcom character is brilliant to watch. It’s a shame then that Bettany’s Vision doesn’t quite match up. No matter the decade, Vision never really seems to change much and while he is funny on occasion, I’m not entirely convinced that seeing more of Vision is a good thing. He’s always been the aloof synthezoid and this may have made him a little too ‘human’. However that said, it was still nice to see a lot more of Bettany than we have done in a while.
Once you get over the sitcom styling, the first couple of episodes are quite slow and had it continued in this vein I may have struggling to keep interested. However in typical Marvel style, it soon picks up and immerses us into the full MCU experience I was expecting. While I don’t want to say much about the plot, from episode 3 onwards I was hooked and the story never felt drawn out, and this wasn’t just due to the short half hour episodes. Unravelling the world of WandaVision was hugely enjoyable and one particular character reappearance in episode 5 had me almost squealing in geeky happiness. The only thing WandaVision is really lacking is the humour and camaraderie that have made the rest of the MCU films into what we love best. Yes there is humour and fun, but this mostly comes from Woo and Darcy, and I think it’s noticeable that the funnier Avengers are missing.
For me, WandaVision isn’t perfect however it was still hugely enjoyable and has definitely given me a new found appreciation for Wanda as a character. And mor important of all, it’s filled a rather large Marvel shaped hole brought on by coronavirus. Bring on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Girl With All the Gifts (2017) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A unique concept that doesn't fail on delivery. (2 more)
Good acting from everyone including the little girl Senna Nanua/ Melanie.
Good action, good fight choreography and gun fight scenes.
Some of the make-up special effects weren't the best. (1 more)
Some things didn't make sense to me when thinking back to the walkie-talkie scene.
Surpasses Expectations and Surprisingly Good (7/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Girl With All The Gifts is a 2016 British Sci-Fi Horror movie directed by Colm McCarthy and written by Mike Carey. It was produced by BFI Film Forever, Creative England, Altitude and Poison Chef and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures and Saban Films. The movie stars Gemma Arterton, Glenn Close and Paddy Considine and Sennia Nanua.
In a post-apocalyptic future, that has been ravaged by a mysterious fungal disease, those infected have turned into fast, mindless zombies, called "hungries.” A small group of hybrid children who crave human flesh but retain the ability to think and feel, go to school at an army base in rural Britain. There they're subjected to cruel experiments by Dr. Caroline Caldwell (Glenn Close). An exceptional girl named Melanie (Sennia Nanua), grows particularly close to school teacher Helen Justineau (Gemma Arterton) and forms a special bond. When the base is invaded, the trio escape with the assistance of Sgt. Eddie Parks (Paddy Considine) and embark on a perilous journey of survival, during which Melanie must come to terms with who she and what she is.
This movie was really good. I really liked the concept and felt it delivered on the premise and didn't fall through. The little girl Melanie played by Sennia Nanua did an excellent job and I was surprised with how much I wound up liking her character. Gemma Arterton was very good as Helen too and Glenn Close just blew me away as the scientist Dr. Caroline Caldwell. Some of the zombie makeup and special effects weren't the best in certain scenes when they slow walk through some dormant zombies but nothing that horrible that I saw. And I didn't like a couple of scenes with another kind of zombies too but more of that in the spoilers section. The action was really spot on and this movie didn't shy away from blood or gore but also didn't seem to really overly depict any gruesome scenes. It did however show the aftermath of some particularly nasty kills. I have to say this was one of the better zombie movies I've seen and I give it a 7/10 as well as my "Must See Seal of Approval". Definitely check out this zombie movie.
Spoiler Section Review:
As I said above, I really liked this zombie movie. The whole concept intrigued me as it looked like they were a bunch of children prisoners in the trailer. And the part where they man puts his arm in front of them and they start chomping at it made me think that they were somehow part zombies or something; which they were. Really the little girl Melanie made the movie work because her character was so interesting. I enjoyed seeing her character growth and how she viewed the world and how they others interacted with her. It's so awkward in the beginning seeing how the soldiers and others react to them even though their children yet when you see the soldier make that point to the teacher you realize with the rest of the audience that these aren't normal children. I really like how they show she has these instincts that she tries really hard to fight against and how it's too hard sometimes. The action is pretty decent in this movie and some pretty cool fight scenes from some of the kid zombies was a cool surprise too and rather epic. The ending totally threw me off and I never thought It would end like that but now that I think about it, it did kind of foreshadow it by Glenn Close telling Melanie how the seed spores would open, still to end the world by lighting that spore tower on fire was shocking to say the least. Like I said I give this movie a 7/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" and definitely see this movie if you haven't already.
In a post-apocalyptic future, that has been ravaged by a mysterious fungal disease, those infected have turned into fast, mindless zombies, called "hungries.” A small group of hybrid children who crave human flesh but retain the ability to think and feel, go to school at an army base in rural Britain. There they're subjected to cruel experiments by Dr. Caroline Caldwell (Glenn Close). An exceptional girl named Melanie (Sennia Nanua), grows particularly close to school teacher Helen Justineau (Gemma Arterton) and forms a special bond. When the base is invaded, the trio escape with the assistance of Sgt. Eddie Parks (Paddy Considine) and embark on a perilous journey of survival, during which Melanie must come to terms with who she and what she is.
This movie was really good. I really liked the concept and felt it delivered on the premise and didn't fall through. The little girl Melanie played by Sennia Nanua did an excellent job and I was surprised with how much I wound up liking her character. Gemma Arterton was very good as Helen too and Glenn Close just blew me away as the scientist Dr. Caroline Caldwell. Some of the zombie makeup and special effects weren't the best in certain scenes when they slow walk through some dormant zombies but nothing that horrible that I saw. And I didn't like a couple of scenes with another kind of zombies too but more of that in the spoilers section. The action was really spot on and this movie didn't shy away from blood or gore but also didn't seem to really overly depict any gruesome scenes. It did however show the aftermath of some particularly nasty kills. I have to say this was one of the better zombie movies I've seen and I give it a 7/10 as well as my "Must See Seal of Approval". Definitely check out this zombie movie.
Spoiler Section Review:
As I said above, I really liked this zombie movie. The whole concept intrigued me as it looked like they were a bunch of children prisoners in the trailer. And the part where they man puts his arm in front of them and they start chomping at it made me think that they were somehow part zombies or something; which they were. Really the little girl Melanie made the movie work because her character was so interesting. I enjoyed seeing her character growth and how she viewed the world and how they others interacted with her. It's so awkward in the beginning seeing how the soldiers and others react to them even though their children yet when you see the soldier make that point to the teacher you realize with the rest of the audience that these aren't normal children. I really like how they show she has these instincts that she tries really hard to fight against and how it's too hard sometimes. The action is pretty decent in this movie and some pretty cool fight scenes from some of the kid zombies was a cool surprise too and rather epic. The ending totally threw me off and I never thought It would end like that but now that I think about it, it did kind of foreshadow it by Glenn Close telling Melanie how the seed spores would open, still to end the world by lighting that spore tower on fire was shocking to say the least. Like I said I give this movie a 7/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" and definitely see this movie if you haven't already.
i Sail GPS : USA NOAA Marine Chart Plotter
Navigation and Travel
App
Your iPhone or WiFi+Cellular iPad can be a high-performance GPS receiver with USA NOAA Raster...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Sep 27, 2017
C is for Candy
Contains spoilers, click to show
And yes, I certainly mean eye candy. Johnny Depp is gorgeous despite the makeup artists’ attempts to make him seem pale and awkward. My brain isn’t working properly due to lack of sleep so I’ll just go ahead and warn you that this is more a regurgitation than a review. Read at your own risk, because I even give the entire ending of the movie away…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…