Search
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Exalted Gate in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I absolutely love the cover of this book. It is gorgeous!! Anyway, this book has ten stories in it, so I will review and rate each one individually.
*
Boots
Judith (of an undisclosed age) is a girl that hates wearing shoes. However, she is in a play where she has to play a Polish tramp. She doesn't want to wear shoes, but the director says even tramps wear shoes. She finds some beat up looking boots in the prop room and puts them on. As soon as they are on her feet, it's like they have a mind of their own. They take Judith where they want to go. What ensues in an adventure that Judith won't soon forget.
I thought the story of Boots was a really cute and interesting read. I definitely think this will appeal to children of all ages. The only slight problem was with punctuation, but that's nothing that major. Judith is an interesting girl. I'd recommend this story.
I'd give Boots a 4.5 out of 5.
*
Five Gifts
Lonia is a thirteen year old girl whose parents are already nagging her to get married. (Yeah, it's a bit much, but it does say in the story that this was way back in the day). She'd rather spend her days in the children's glade talking to her elf friend, Pintak. One day, Pintak is kidnapped by a mean old wizard, and Lonia decides that she must go rescue him. She is given five gifts from different creatures of the forest to help her on her quest.
I was impressed with this story, and I found it quite interesting. There's also a lesson to be learned about experimenting on animals. Lonia was definitely a brave little girl and was willing to risk everything to save her friend. There are a few punctuation mistakes and a mispelt word, but other than that, this story was a good one.
I'd give Five Gifts a 5 out of 5.
*
Sintinko
Sintinko is a story set in Japan back when it was all emperors and generals. The emperor is jealous of Sintinko and wants to have him killed. It's only because of Ilyo, Sintinko's love interest, that the emperor spares his life. However, Sintinko is banished from Japan until he can find a maple tree that can sit in the hand of the emperor. Ilyo and Sintinko know that they will most likely never see each other. Unbeknownst to Sintinko and everyone else, Ilyo disguises herself as a geisha to help Sintinko on his journey. Love and loss are the themes of this story.
This was such a bittersweet love story. I felt sorry for both Sintinko and Ilyo. Sintinko thought he would never see his beloved again and swore off any type of relationship. Ilyo had her beloved right there in front of her, yet she couldn't do anything about it.
The names, being Japanese, were a bit hard to pronounce, but it's easy to get past that since the story is so strong. Speaking of names, this story even lets us know how the Bonsai tree got its name.
There's a few punctuation mistakes, but nothing that takes away from the story.
I think this story would be better suited for ages 11+. Personally, I found the story a bit slow, but not painfully slow.
I'd give Sintinko a 3.5 out of 5.
*
Tivurambhat
Tivurambhat is the story of a ghost by the same name of the title who helps people out in times of need in India. A mean man forces people to work for him by letting them borrow money, putting the interest up, and paying them such low wages they can never afford to pay him pack. One man decides to do something about it and goes to Tivurambhat for help.
I loved the message behind the story. Towards the ending, it even had me smiling. I couldn't pronounce the names since they were all Indian names, so I just shortened them so my American self could pronounce them. I loved the character of Tiv. He kind of reminded me of an American version of Casper for some reason. I really enjoyed the conversation between Pradesh and Tiv the most. This was such a happy story!
Again, there's some punctuation mistakes and a few grammar ones as well, but the story itself was excellent.
I'd give Tivurambhat a 5 out of 5.
*
St. Penalyn's Well
St Penalyn's Well tells the story of Rebecca (of an undisclosed age) who ventures into an overgrown garden with her dog. She stumbles across a well with an inscription. It is while reading this inscription that she becomes trapped in the well. Lucky for her, she meets an elf named Opickle who keeps her company and gives her the inspiration she needs to find her way out.
This was definitely an interesting story. I was hooked all the way through. It's a story about friendship amongst diversity and not giving up. I found Opickle to be just a tad bit of a snob but not enough to put me off the story.
A few punctuation mistakes throughout the story but not enough to be distracting.
St. Penalyn's Well gets a 5 out of 5 from me.
*
Quint and Trout's Mistake
Quint and Trout's Mistake is a story I didn't finish because of the name calling and making fun of someone who is overweight. It starts out innocently enough. A lake is being overrun by a white smelly substance. Two brothers, Quint and Trout, talk their friend Ned into investigating why this is happening. Ned swims down to the bottom of the lake and finds an overweight creature living in a cave who has been kicked out of his house. This is when the name calling starts, and I stopped reading.
I do not like stories aimed at children that condone name calling of any sort whether it be because of weight, disabilities, race, etc. Children do not need to read something like this and feel bad about themselves or view it as an excuse to tease others. I was very disappointed something like this was in a children's book.
Quint and Trout's Mistake gets a 0 out of 5 from me. What a vile story!
*
Densus
Densus is a boy who was born with blue fingernails and blue streaks in his hair. This is because he has a destiny to fulfill. When a crab named Arnold asks him if he'd go tell a giant that he has found a perfect wife for him, Densus agrees because it's his destiny even if there's a possibility the giant could kill him.
This is a story about destinies. It lets us know that we all have destinies if only we weren't too busy trying to find out what they are. This is a fun story which I think children would love! I loved Arnold the crab!! I think a majority of children would love him.
Again, there's a few punctuation and grammar mistakes but nothing major.
I'd give Densus a 5 out of 5.
*
Alice's Granddaughter
Alice's Granddaughter takes place years after Alice in Wonderland. Alice's granddaughter, Alicia, is recruited by a thief named Cheng to go down into a rabbit hole to get him a yellow dragon. Alicia discovers that things in Wonderland haven't changed much.
I thoroughly enjoyed this story! I'm a sucker for everything Alice in Wonderland-esque, and this was no exception! I loved how the author still managed to preserve the original Wonderland in his tale and how he even managed to keep the style of writing similar to that of Lewis Carroll. My favorite character was definitely the talking table. My only gripe is that I wish this story would've been longer!
As like with the previous story, there are some punctuation and grammar mistakes that can be overlooked.
Alice's Granddaughter gets a bit 5 out of 5.
*
The Dragon
The Dragon is a story about death. In this story, we follow a dragon in her very last moments as she dies of what I assume to be old age. We get to see her memories of when she was her prime and when she takes her last breath.
This is a sad story and probably one for the older children unless younger children can handle the topic of death. It's not written in a morbid way though. It's actually written quite beautifully especially when we get to see the memory of the dragon in her prime. I think this story can show that death is not always bad.
There are grammar and punctuation mistakes but nothing that deters from the story.
The Dragon gets a 3.75 out of 5.
*
The Wisdom of a Dog
The Wisdom of a Dog is about a man named Keith and his dog who go on an adventure and wind up in a crystal city. Keith must found out who is destroying the city and save it.
This story was a good read, and I think most children would enjoy it especially as it involves a talking dog. I enjoyed how the author even placed his own dialogue in the story. This is a good versus bad story that shows that bad people never win.
Again, there are grammar and punctuation mistakes, but it doesn't take away from the story.
The Wisdom of a Dog gets a 3.5 out of 5.
*
The Exalted Gate by Daniel Nanavati averages out to a 3.5 out of 5. I'd definitely recommend this book to old and young alike!
(I received a free physical copy of this title from the publisher in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I absolutely love the cover of this book. It is gorgeous!! Anyway, this book has ten stories in it, so I will review and rate each one individually.
*
Boots
Judith (of an undisclosed age) is a girl that hates wearing shoes. However, she is in a play where she has to play a Polish tramp. She doesn't want to wear shoes, but the director says even tramps wear shoes. She finds some beat up looking boots in the prop room and puts them on. As soon as they are on her feet, it's like they have a mind of their own. They take Judith where they want to go. What ensues in an adventure that Judith won't soon forget.
I thought the story of Boots was a really cute and interesting read. I definitely think this will appeal to children of all ages. The only slight problem was with punctuation, but that's nothing that major. Judith is an interesting girl. I'd recommend this story.
I'd give Boots a 4.5 out of 5.
*
Five Gifts
Lonia is a thirteen year old girl whose parents are already nagging her to get married. (Yeah, it's a bit much, but it does say in the story that this was way back in the day). She'd rather spend her days in the children's glade talking to her elf friend, Pintak. One day, Pintak is kidnapped by a mean old wizard, and Lonia decides that she must go rescue him. She is given five gifts from different creatures of the forest to help her on her quest.
I was impressed with this story, and I found it quite interesting. There's also a lesson to be learned about experimenting on animals. Lonia was definitely a brave little girl and was willing to risk everything to save her friend. There are a few punctuation mistakes and a mispelt word, but other than that, this story was a good one.
I'd give Five Gifts a 5 out of 5.
*
Sintinko
Sintinko is a story set in Japan back when it was all emperors and generals. The emperor is jealous of Sintinko and wants to have him killed. It's only because of Ilyo, Sintinko's love interest, that the emperor spares his life. However, Sintinko is banished from Japan until he can find a maple tree that can sit in the hand of the emperor. Ilyo and Sintinko know that they will most likely never see each other. Unbeknownst to Sintinko and everyone else, Ilyo disguises herself as a geisha to help Sintinko on his journey. Love and loss are the themes of this story.
This was such a bittersweet love story. I felt sorry for both Sintinko and Ilyo. Sintinko thought he would never see his beloved again and swore off any type of relationship. Ilyo had her beloved right there in front of her, yet she couldn't do anything about it.
The names, being Japanese, were a bit hard to pronounce, but it's easy to get past that since the story is so strong. Speaking of names, this story even lets us know how the Bonsai tree got its name.
There's a few punctuation mistakes, but nothing that takes away from the story.
I think this story would be better suited for ages 11+. Personally, I found the story a bit slow, but not painfully slow.
I'd give Sintinko a 3.5 out of 5.
*
Tivurambhat
Tivurambhat is the story of a ghost by the same name of the title who helps people out in times of need in India. A mean man forces people to work for him by letting them borrow money, putting the interest up, and paying them such low wages they can never afford to pay him pack. One man decides to do something about it and goes to Tivurambhat for help.
I loved the message behind the story. Towards the ending, it even had me smiling. I couldn't pronounce the names since they were all Indian names, so I just shortened them so my American self could pronounce them. I loved the character of Tiv. He kind of reminded me of an American version of Casper for some reason. I really enjoyed the conversation between Pradesh and Tiv the most. This was such a happy story!
Again, there's some punctuation mistakes and a few grammar ones as well, but the story itself was excellent.
I'd give Tivurambhat a 5 out of 5.
*
St. Penalyn's Well
St Penalyn's Well tells the story of Rebecca (of an undisclosed age) who ventures into an overgrown garden with her dog. She stumbles across a well with an inscription. It is while reading this inscription that she becomes trapped in the well. Lucky for her, she meets an elf named Opickle who keeps her company and gives her the inspiration she needs to find her way out.
This was definitely an interesting story. I was hooked all the way through. It's a story about friendship amongst diversity and not giving up. I found Opickle to be just a tad bit of a snob but not enough to put me off the story.
A few punctuation mistakes throughout the story but not enough to be distracting.
St. Penalyn's Well gets a 5 out of 5 from me.
*
Quint and Trout's Mistake
Quint and Trout's Mistake is a story I didn't finish because of the name calling and making fun of someone who is overweight. It starts out innocently enough. A lake is being overrun by a white smelly substance. Two brothers, Quint and Trout, talk their friend Ned into investigating why this is happening. Ned swims down to the bottom of the lake and finds an overweight creature living in a cave who has been kicked out of his house. This is when the name calling starts, and I stopped reading.
I do not like stories aimed at children that condone name calling of any sort whether it be because of weight, disabilities, race, etc. Children do not need to read something like this and feel bad about themselves or view it as an excuse to tease others. I was very disappointed something like this was in a children's book.
Quint and Trout's Mistake gets a 0 out of 5 from me. What a vile story!
*
Densus
Densus is a boy who was born with blue fingernails and blue streaks in his hair. This is because he has a destiny to fulfill. When a crab named Arnold asks him if he'd go tell a giant that he has found a perfect wife for him, Densus agrees because it's his destiny even if there's a possibility the giant could kill him.
This is a story about destinies. It lets us know that we all have destinies if only we weren't too busy trying to find out what they are. This is a fun story which I think children would love! I loved Arnold the crab!! I think a majority of children would love him.
Again, there's a few punctuation and grammar mistakes but nothing major.
I'd give Densus a 5 out of 5.
*
Alice's Granddaughter
Alice's Granddaughter takes place years after Alice in Wonderland. Alice's granddaughter, Alicia, is recruited by a thief named Cheng to go down into a rabbit hole to get him a yellow dragon. Alicia discovers that things in Wonderland haven't changed much.
I thoroughly enjoyed this story! I'm a sucker for everything Alice in Wonderland-esque, and this was no exception! I loved how the author still managed to preserve the original Wonderland in his tale and how he even managed to keep the style of writing similar to that of Lewis Carroll. My favorite character was definitely the talking table. My only gripe is that I wish this story would've been longer!
As like with the previous story, there are some punctuation and grammar mistakes that can be overlooked.
Alice's Granddaughter gets a bit 5 out of 5.
*
The Dragon
The Dragon is a story about death. In this story, we follow a dragon in her very last moments as she dies of what I assume to be old age. We get to see her memories of when she was her prime and when she takes her last breath.
This is a sad story and probably one for the older children unless younger children can handle the topic of death. It's not written in a morbid way though. It's actually written quite beautifully especially when we get to see the memory of the dragon in her prime. I think this story can show that death is not always bad.
There are grammar and punctuation mistakes but nothing that deters from the story.
The Dragon gets a 3.75 out of 5.
*
The Wisdom of a Dog
The Wisdom of a Dog is about a man named Keith and his dog who go on an adventure and wind up in a crystal city. Keith must found out who is destroying the city and save it.
This story was a good read, and I think most children would enjoy it especially as it involves a talking dog. I enjoyed how the author even placed his own dialogue in the story. This is a good versus bad story that shows that bad people never win.
Again, there are grammar and punctuation mistakes, but it doesn't take away from the story.
The Wisdom of a Dog gets a 3.5 out of 5.
*
The Exalted Gate by Daniel Nanavati averages out to a 3.5 out of 5. I'd definitely recommend this book to old and young alike!
(I received a free physical copy of this title from the publisher in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated A Cold Day in Hell in Books
Jan 29, 2018
Engaging characters (2 more)
Great courtroom scene
Strong female lead
Engaging debut mystery
Lauren Riley is a thirty-eight-year-old twice-divorced mother of two college age daughters, working cold case homicides. She has a great, younger cold case partner, Reese, and carries a torch for her ex-husband, Mark. Meanwhile, her ex, Joe Wheeler, is a Garden Valley homicide detective and a total (excuse my language) a-hole, who brazenly punches Lauren in the mouth after learning she's working against him on a case. Lauren's working two jobs -- her daytime gig on cold cases and also as a certified Private Investigator (PI). Lauren is hired by her nemesis, attorney Frank Violanti, to work the high-profile case of David, who is accused of murdering Katherine Vine, the beautiful, younger wife of Anthony Vine, who runs a successful chain of gyms. Lauren knows taking the case could stir up some issues in her department, with the DA, and with Reese. But in her gut, she feels that David is innocent. Can she and Frank make peace and prove it?
I read a lot of mysteries and while there are thankfully more strong female detectives coming on the scene (see Kristen Lepionka's Roxanne Weary and Emily Littlejohn's Gemma Monroe, for instance), they are still few and far between. While Lauren Riley may still be finding herself (there's a lot of side coverage of emotional entanglements and relationships here), I still love finding and championing a complicated, real, strong female detective.
Lauren's PI case is really the star of the show, and it's interesting and engaging throughout the entire novel. It keeps you guessing throughout, questioning whether David did it or not, and who else played a key role in Katherine and Anthony Vine lives. Nothing is cut or dried.
Also fascinating is Lauren's main cold case. While you could argue some of it ties up neatly, it doesn't go as expected, per se, if that makes sense, and the characters involved are intriguing and different. All the cases kept me interested as I read. A lot certainly happens in this novel, between Lauren's work and personal life. Nothing is boring, and there's never really a dull moment, especially once you get into the swing of things and realize that the book covers both her personal life and her work life in-depth. It also tells the story from more than Lauren's POV, even if she's the main focus, which works surprisingly well.
I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the book culminates in a trial related to Lauren's PI case, and it's a great, suspenseful, incredibly well-written piece of work. The courtroom scenes were so well-done and really had me on the edge of my seat. One of the things I loved about this novel was how I could so easily picture each of these characters-- each is well-described and fleshed out. Redmond writes darn good trial scenes (and a darn good book), and I was frantically flipping the pages to see how things would turn out.
It wasn't until I finished the book that I learned the author is a retired homicide detective, but it definitely shows as you read. The novel is written expertly in terms of police and courtroom procedure, but still enjoyable in terms of the characters. There is a lot of personal "stuff" in terms of Lauren; this will be a little different if you are used to the Bosch type of detective (the love of my life and my hero). Still, it's completely refreshing to see a complicated female lead detective, and, as mentioned, so nice to be reading more of these stories. I grew to really love Lauren.
The courtroom scenes are great, and a lot will keep you guessing. Sure, some of the cold cases wrap up what seem a little easily, but even Lauren addresses that as she works. I read some reviews that Joe Wheeler is a cliche character, and I guess I could see where people get that, but for me, society as of late seems to be showing us everyday that these sort of angry, abusive men truly exist. Everywhere. To me, Joe was a sadly realistic portrayal of a horrible man, and his slow, boiling anger only added to the tension of the entire novel.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. It looks like it's going to be a series, and it ends with some unfinished issues that make me even more eager for book two.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
I read a lot of mysteries and while there are thankfully more strong female detectives coming on the scene (see Kristen Lepionka's Roxanne Weary and Emily Littlejohn's Gemma Monroe, for instance), they are still few and far between. While Lauren Riley may still be finding herself (there's a lot of side coverage of emotional entanglements and relationships here), I still love finding and championing a complicated, real, strong female detective.
Lauren's PI case is really the star of the show, and it's interesting and engaging throughout the entire novel. It keeps you guessing throughout, questioning whether David did it or not, and who else played a key role in Katherine and Anthony Vine lives. Nothing is cut or dried.
Also fascinating is Lauren's main cold case. While you could argue some of it ties up neatly, it doesn't go as expected, per se, if that makes sense, and the characters involved are intriguing and different. All the cases kept me interested as I read. A lot certainly happens in this novel, between Lauren's work and personal life. Nothing is boring, and there's never really a dull moment, especially once you get into the swing of things and realize that the book covers both her personal life and her work life in-depth. It also tells the story from more than Lauren's POV, even if she's the main focus, which works surprisingly well.
I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the book culminates in a trial related to Lauren's PI case, and it's a great, suspenseful, incredibly well-written piece of work. The courtroom scenes were so well-done and really had me on the edge of my seat. One of the things I loved about this novel was how I could so easily picture each of these characters-- each is well-described and fleshed out. Redmond writes darn good trial scenes (and a darn good book), and I was frantically flipping the pages to see how things would turn out.
It wasn't until I finished the book that I learned the author is a retired homicide detective, but it definitely shows as you read. The novel is written expertly in terms of police and courtroom procedure, but still enjoyable in terms of the characters. There is a lot of personal "stuff" in terms of Lauren; this will be a little different if you are used to the Bosch type of detective (the love of my life and my hero). Still, it's completely refreshing to see a complicated female lead detective, and, as mentioned, so nice to be reading more of these stories. I grew to really love Lauren.
The courtroom scenes are great, and a lot will keep you guessing. Sure, some of the cold cases wrap up what seem a little easily, but even Lauren addresses that as she works. I read some reviews that Joe Wheeler is a cliche character, and I guess I could see where people get that, but for me, society as of late seems to be showing us everyday that these sort of angry, abusive men truly exist. Everywhere. To me, Joe was a sadly realistic portrayal of a horrible man, and his slow, boiling anger only added to the tension of the entire novel.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. It looks like it's going to be a series, and it ends with some unfinished issues that make me even more eager for book two.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Social Network (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
It’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t know about Facebook. On any given day, at least 250 million active users log on to Facebook and spend over 700 billion minutes per month updating their status, posting pictures or playing casual games. So dominant is this social network, the name itself is both a brand and a verb. Who would have thought that sharing inanities about what we’re currently thinking, eating, reading, watching with our friends would garner such interest? In the new movie The Social Network, director David Fincher sets out to show how, from the very humblest beginnings, Facebook became the juggernaut that it is today.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
An Adventure in Statistics: The Reality Enigma
Book
Shortlisted for the British Book Design and Production Awards 2016 Shortlisted for the Association...
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Hart Broken (Cale & Mickey #1) in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Contemporary
Goodreads Rating: 4.75/5 stars
My rating: 4/5 stars
Mickey Hart doesn’t do one-night stands. Until she wakes up in a luxury penthouse. With nothing but a t-shirt. And no idea who it belongs to.
Enter Cale Windermere. Driven. Ambitious. Successful. And so gorgeous he could’ve walked straight out of a romance novel…
Except he can’t walk. Not that it ever stops him from getting what he wants. And he wants Mickey. Even if she’s keeping secrets from him.
This book…
Where do I even begin? It has a strong start and it stays strong. Mickey is awkward and funny. She starts out at the perfect chick lit character.
“Cale Windermere,” he said, sticking out his hand.
“C-Cale?”
“Yeah. Like the leafy green, just take off the K and replace with a C.”
Oh. My. God.
“And you are?”
“Uh…”
Cale raised an eyebrow, chuckling lightly.
Say something, Mickey.
“I-l’m, uh…”
Something intelligent. And preferably English.
With the help of a mental slap, Mickey willed herself to take his hand and shake it, a bit too eagerly. “I-I’m Mickey.”
It’s difficult not to like her. I like even more that she doesn’t really care Cale’s in a wheelchair and she doesn’t do anything stupid and awkward like kneel down so they’re eye level or act as if he’s an invalid. Even though she does notice the wheelchair, she is easily distracted by how attractive he is.
Carefully taking a sip, Mickey did a once over of the man sitting in front of her. Cale’s shirt was just fitted enough to show off the remarkably solid build of his upper torso. She jotted down a mental list of all his attractive attributes thus far.
Thick, unruly chocolate locks. Gorgeous emerald eyes. Award-winning smile.
And he had a long list of greats.
Great back. Great shoulders. Great chest. Great arms.
Really great arms.
She ran her nails over the hot ceramic.
You’d never think that something was wrong with him.
She wondered if he had great abs too.
So I love Mickey. And the farther I got into the book, the more complex she became. I found myself really wanting to know why she was so commitment shy and found it difficult to sleep in the same bed as someone.
I love Cale a lot too, although not as much as Mickey. He’s charismatic, sexy, and very much in love with Mickey. He’s everything you’d expect in a love interest. So much so, he’s a bit of a cliche. Just because he can’t walk doesn’t mean he’s not a stereotypical billionaire love interest.
Cale gets self-conscious about his disability at times, and he has a lot of emotional baggage from that and his ex wife. But he’s pretty easy to get, and I don’t feel the same complexity with him I do with Mickey. That being said, he does have flaws, and I love that. He gets mad at Mickey and fed up with her unwillingness to share.
“Essentially, you’re more than happy to fuck my brains out but you won’t stay by my side. How am I doing so far, Mickey?”
“Cale…”
“So I understand, okay? Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it understanding,” he corrected himself wryly. “But I get it. I get that you need your space. It didn’t take a fucking genius to figure that one out. And I’ve tried my best to respect that…”
True.
“And be patient…”
True.
“And understanding.”
All painfully true.
He suddenly looked exhausted. And he suddenly sounded exhausted, “But Jesus, Mickey.” Shaking his head slowly, Cale blew the hair out of his eyes and sighed, “You need to throw a guy a bone eventually.”
Gotta love that he’s human and isn’t an eternal patience machine. So Cale’s all right. However, the chapters from his point of view are really weird.
They’re short, in first person, and melodramatic. A lot of the time the reader doesn’t get to see where he is or what he’s doing. Instead, they just hear his internal thoughts about Mickey. That’s it. And they’re melodramatic and repetitive, especially in the beginning of the book. The farther into the book, the more fleshed out the chapters get. But a full star is knocked off for those earlier chapters.
Despite that, I definitely recommend reading this book. It’s darker than most contemporary romances, which is very refreshing, but it has plenty of light and hilarious moments. Definitely worth the read.
If you liked this review, or know someone who might like Hart Broken, then I’d definitely appreciate it if you shared this post with your friends. Thank you, and have a great day!
Goodreads Rating: 4.75/5 stars
My rating: 4/5 stars
Mickey Hart doesn’t do one-night stands. Until she wakes up in a luxury penthouse. With nothing but a t-shirt. And no idea who it belongs to.
Enter Cale Windermere. Driven. Ambitious. Successful. And so gorgeous he could’ve walked straight out of a romance novel…
Except he can’t walk. Not that it ever stops him from getting what he wants. And he wants Mickey. Even if she’s keeping secrets from him.
This book…
Where do I even begin? It has a strong start and it stays strong. Mickey is awkward and funny. She starts out at the perfect chick lit character.
“Cale Windermere,” he said, sticking out his hand.
“C-Cale?”
“Yeah. Like the leafy green, just take off the K and replace with a C.”
Oh. My. God.
“And you are?”
“Uh…”
Cale raised an eyebrow, chuckling lightly.
Say something, Mickey.
“I-l’m, uh…”
Something intelligent. And preferably English.
With the help of a mental slap, Mickey willed herself to take his hand and shake it, a bit too eagerly. “I-I’m Mickey.”
It’s difficult not to like her. I like even more that she doesn’t really care Cale’s in a wheelchair and she doesn’t do anything stupid and awkward like kneel down so they’re eye level or act as if he’s an invalid. Even though she does notice the wheelchair, she is easily distracted by how attractive he is.
Carefully taking a sip, Mickey did a once over of the man sitting in front of her. Cale’s shirt was just fitted enough to show off the remarkably solid build of his upper torso. She jotted down a mental list of all his attractive attributes thus far.
Thick, unruly chocolate locks. Gorgeous emerald eyes. Award-winning smile.
And he had a long list of greats.
Great back. Great shoulders. Great chest. Great arms.
Really great arms.
She ran her nails over the hot ceramic.
You’d never think that something was wrong with him.
She wondered if he had great abs too.
So I love Mickey. And the farther I got into the book, the more complex she became. I found myself really wanting to know why she was so commitment shy and found it difficult to sleep in the same bed as someone.
I love Cale a lot too, although not as much as Mickey. He’s charismatic, sexy, and very much in love with Mickey. He’s everything you’d expect in a love interest. So much so, he’s a bit of a cliche. Just because he can’t walk doesn’t mean he’s not a stereotypical billionaire love interest.
Cale gets self-conscious about his disability at times, and he has a lot of emotional baggage from that and his ex wife. But he’s pretty easy to get, and I don’t feel the same complexity with him I do with Mickey. That being said, he does have flaws, and I love that. He gets mad at Mickey and fed up with her unwillingness to share.
“Essentially, you’re more than happy to fuck my brains out but you won’t stay by my side. How am I doing so far, Mickey?”
“Cale…”
“So I understand, okay? Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it understanding,” he corrected himself wryly. “But I get it. I get that you need your space. It didn’t take a fucking genius to figure that one out. And I’ve tried my best to respect that…”
True.
“And be patient…”
True.
“And understanding.”
All painfully true.
He suddenly looked exhausted. And he suddenly sounded exhausted, “But Jesus, Mickey.” Shaking his head slowly, Cale blew the hair out of his eyes and sighed, “You need to throw a guy a bone eventually.”
Gotta love that he’s human and isn’t an eternal patience machine. So Cale’s all right. However, the chapters from his point of view are really weird.
They’re short, in first person, and melodramatic. A lot of the time the reader doesn’t get to see where he is or what he’s doing. Instead, they just hear his internal thoughts about Mickey. That’s it. And they’re melodramatic and repetitive, especially in the beginning of the book. The farther into the book, the more fleshed out the chapters get. But a full star is knocked off for those earlier chapters.
Despite that, I definitely recommend reading this book. It’s darker than most contemporary romances, which is very refreshing, but it has plenty of light and hilarious moments. Definitely worth the read.
If you liked this review, or know someone who might like Hart Broken, then I’d definitely appreciate it if you shared this post with your friends. Thank you, and have a great day!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Erika (17788 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Constantine (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The battle between Heaven and Hell has been chronicled numerous times on film. Ranging from the “Omen” and “Exorcist” series to the recent “Hellboy” and “End of Days”, Hollywood has never shied away from the struggle between good and evil and audiences have usually responded by attending in droves.
The latest entry into the genre is Constantine, which chronicles the exploits of supernatural detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), who is tasked to walk the line between good and evil to make sure that balance is maintained. John is a very troubled individual and his transactions with angels and demons have warped his views on life, humanity, and the afterlife.
Due to things in his past, John is trying to right his wrongs so he can gain a place in heaven, toward that end, the forces of Hell are trying there best to ensure that John is unable to gain redemption so they will be able to collect his soul, and repay him for all of their minions that he has vanquished over the years.
As if this was not bad enough, the rules between Heaven and Hell seem to be blurring as there is a growing demon presence on Earth which does not bode well for the future of humanity. It is learned that there is an agreement in place that there can be no direct contact, only influence to humans giving them the freedom to pick between good and evil and thus the fate of ones soul.
When a local detective named Angela (Rachael Weisz), contacts John, she is desperate to learn the truth behind her twin sister’s apparent suicide. Although skeptical at first, John soon learns that he and Angela have become players in a much larger game with the very fate of humanity dependant upon their actions.
Before long, John and Angela are facing off against legions of Hell’s minions as they attempt to save the soul of Angela’s sister and save humanity.
The film will be different things to many viewers as on one hand; some many take exception to the story and the bland tone and mannerisms of Reeves, as well as some of the films theological stances.
That being said, the film works, the action is good without being in your face as the computer generated effects enhance the film, complimenting the story and actors rather than upstaging them. The film has a murky look to it which sets the tone perfectly as this is not a happy movie filled with lovable people, instead it is a tail of people trying to do what is right and staying true to their beliefs though surrounded by temptations and numerous chances to stray.
Reeves plays Constantine as a man who is dedicated to what he does, but also shows us that he is unhappy with his life and past choices as they have forever haunted him. John is forced to do things he would rather not do as it is the only chance he has left at redemption and this has seen him deteriorate as he feels he is a tool that is being used with no end in sight.
Weisz does a good job with a very limited role as she is able to keep up with the action without falling prey to the damsel in distress mode that haunted her character in the “Mummy Films”. Singer Gavin Rossdale does a good job as the smarmy demon Balthazar who is a constant bane to John.
Despite the occasional hiccups with the plot and Reeves inability to show range or expressions, for the most part Constantine works and looks to be a good starting point for what is likely to be a franchise series for Warner Bros.
The latest entry into the genre is Constantine, which chronicles the exploits of supernatural detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), who is tasked to walk the line between good and evil to make sure that balance is maintained. John is a very troubled individual and his transactions with angels and demons have warped his views on life, humanity, and the afterlife.
Due to things in his past, John is trying to right his wrongs so he can gain a place in heaven, toward that end, the forces of Hell are trying there best to ensure that John is unable to gain redemption so they will be able to collect his soul, and repay him for all of their minions that he has vanquished over the years.
As if this was not bad enough, the rules between Heaven and Hell seem to be blurring as there is a growing demon presence on Earth which does not bode well for the future of humanity. It is learned that there is an agreement in place that there can be no direct contact, only influence to humans giving them the freedom to pick between good and evil and thus the fate of ones soul.
When a local detective named Angela (Rachael Weisz), contacts John, she is desperate to learn the truth behind her twin sister’s apparent suicide. Although skeptical at first, John soon learns that he and Angela have become players in a much larger game with the very fate of humanity dependant upon their actions.
Before long, John and Angela are facing off against legions of Hell’s minions as they attempt to save the soul of Angela’s sister and save humanity.
The film will be different things to many viewers as on one hand; some many take exception to the story and the bland tone and mannerisms of Reeves, as well as some of the films theological stances.
That being said, the film works, the action is good without being in your face as the computer generated effects enhance the film, complimenting the story and actors rather than upstaging them. The film has a murky look to it which sets the tone perfectly as this is not a happy movie filled with lovable people, instead it is a tail of people trying to do what is right and staying true to their beliefs though surrounded by temptations and numerous chances to stray.
Reeves plays Constantine as a man who is dedicated to what he does, but also shows us that he is unhappy with his life and past choices as they have forever haunted him. John is forced to do things he would rather not do as it is the only chance he has left at redemption and this has seen him deteriorate as he feels he is a tool that is being used with no end in sight.
Weisz does a good job with a very limited role as she is able to keep up with the action without falling prey to the damsel in distress mode that haunted her character in the “Mummy Films”. Singer Gavin Rossdale does a good job as the smarmy demon Balthazar who is a constant bane to John.
Despite the occasional hiccups with the plot and Reeves inability to show range or expressions, for the most part Constantine works and looks to be a good starting point for what is likely to be a franchise series for Warner Bros.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
25+ years in the making!
Up until its release, "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" would have been at the top of any movie list featuring movies in development hell never to actually make it to the big screen. Those who are interested should read the lengthy details of the various derailed productions of the film including its original incarnation starring Johnny Depp and the late Jean Rochefort. The film chronicles can even be viewed on their own in the 2002 documentary film "Lost in La Mancha".
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
