Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Northman (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The bloody action. (2 more)
The rhythmic, pounding score.
Amleth's visions and strange encounters.
May be too weird or slow for some. (2 more)
Won't change your opinion of Robert Eggers if you already dislike him as a filmmaker.
...Did you say fart sniffing?
A Gory Viking Epic Forged in Boisterous Greatness
The Northman is director Robert Eggers third feature length film after The Witch and The Lighthouse. The film is written by Eggers and Sjón (Lamb, frequent collaborator with Björk). The Northman is described as an epic historical action drama, but is essentially a Viking revenge film. Taking place in AD 895, King Aurvandill War-Raven (Ethan Hawke) is killed by his brother, Fjölnir (Claes Bang). Aurvandill’s son, Amleth (Oscar Novak portrays young Amleth) flees and swears revenge on his uncle while vowing to save his mother Queen Gudrún (Nicole Kidman).
In AD 914, a now adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) has been raised as a Viking and was enlisted as a berserker. Seemingly losing his focus in furious battle, Amleth is reminded of his vengeful mission a few years later by a Seeress (Björk) that predicts that Amleth will soon get his sought after revenge on his uncle.
The film is based on the story of Amleth, which was written sometime before the year 1200 and inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Northman feels like it’s forged by the same cinematic swordsmith that created the likes of Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, and Gladiator, but with a bloodier, and slightly trippier ambiance Robert Eggers tends to be known for.
Amleth’s opening voiceover as the film opens with a monstrously intimidating volcano on the verge of erupting is haunting. Alexander Skarsgård has this gruff and nearly grunt-like growl to his speech that you can feel reverberate in your chest as he speaks. The score to the film is also just as memorable and incredible. On paper, it’s just a series of loud drumming or pounding, a fancy string arrangement, and some harmless chanting. But all of those elements together suddenly become this impressive musical declaration of war. The score constantly crescendos and always finds a way to ignite a fire within you.
It’s humorous to think that most will have seen Willem Dafoe last in Spider-Man: No Way Home. Dafoe’s role as Heimir the Fool is also a leap in a different direction even when compared to his role as Thomas Wake in The Lighthouse. Heimir’s key role in the story is to oversee the spiritual journey Almeth takes with Aurvandill right before his death. It’s a bizarre sequence as both grown men and young boy are dressed in nothing but loin cloths as they act like dogs, get on their hands and knees, drink water from a bowl, belch, and take turns sniffing each other’s farts. It’s an intriguing role for Dafoe as he’s this crowd pleasing jester one minute and a spiritual guide the next.
The barbaric action is fairly straightforward in The Northman, but what complicates things are Amleth’s visions. Beginning with his encounter with the Seeress, Amleth also battles an undead spirit for the Night Blade, has a vision of a Valkyrie taking him to Valhalla, and sees his unborn children in rare glimpses of the future. These surreal sequences have a palpable dream-like quality to them. It makes you wonder if they’re actually occurring or are only in Amleth’s head.
Nicole Kidman is exceptional as Queen Gudrún. The character is written in a way that makes her seem like a damsel in distress, but she’s much more evil and manipulative. At first, she seems like the typical Queen character that is pushed aside in order to give the spotlight to the king. But once Gudrún comes face to face with an adult Amleth, she strikes like a snake with venomous words that pierce Amleth deeper than any weapon actually could. Kidman shines in the role as well as you seem to love the fact that a mother could be so cruel to one of her children.
Spoiling a film is no fun, but since The Northman is kind of bombing at the box office right now ($23.5 million opening weekend on a $70-$90 million budget) this is worth mentioning. The finale of the film takes place at the volcano Hekla, which resides at the Gates of Hel. Lava is spilling out everywhere as smoke fills the air and two grown men sword duel to the death. That’s right, the ending of The Northman has two naked men sword fighting at the base of an erupting volcano. It’s freaking nuts.
The Northman is a bloody and ferocious battle cry of a revenge film. The action is brutal and the performances are extraordinary. This is Robert Eggers at his most savage and masterful.
In AD 914, a now adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) has been raised as a Viking and was enlisted as a berserker. Seemingly losing his focus in furious battle, Amleth is reminded of his vengeful mission a few years later by a Seeress (Björk) that predicts that Amleth will soon get his sought after revenge on his uncle.
The film is based on the story of Amleth, which was written sometime before the year 1200 and inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Northman feels like it’s forged by the same cinematic swordsmith that created the likes of Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, and Gladiator, but with a bloodier, and slightly trippier ambiance Robert Eggers tends to be known for.
Amleth’s opening voiceover as the film opens with a monstrously intimidating volcano on the verge of erupting is haunting. Alexander Skarsgård has this gruff and nearly grunt-like growl to his speech that you can feel reverberate in your chest as he speaks. The score to the film is also just as memorable and incredible. On paper, it’s just a series of loud drumming or pounding, a fancy string arrangement, and some harmless chanting. But all of those elements together suddenly become this impressive musical declaration of war. The score constantly crescendos and always finds a way to ignite a fire within you.
It’s humorous to think that most will have seen Willem Dafoe last in Spider-Man: No Way Home. Dafoe’s role as Heimir the Fool is also a leap in a different direction even when compared to his role as Thomas Wake in The Lighthouse. Heimir’s key role in the story is to oversee the spiritual journey Almeth takes with Aurvandill right before his death. It’s a bizarre sequence as both grown men and young boy are dressed in nothing but loin cloths as they act like dogs, get on their hands and knees, drink water from a bowl, belch, and take turns sniffing each other’s farts. It’s an intriguing role for Dafoe as he’s this crowd pleasing jester one minute and a spiritual guide the next.
The barbaric action is fairly straightforward in The Northman, but what complicates things are Amleth’s visions. Beginning with his encounter with the Seeress, Amleth also battles an undead spirit for the Night Blade, has a vision of a Valkyrie taking him to Valhalla, and sees his unborn children in rare glimpses of the future. These surreal sequences have a palpable dream-like quality to them. It makes you wonder if they’re actually occurring or are only in Amleth’s head.
Nicole Kidman is exceptional as Queen Gudrún. The character is written in a way that makes her seem like a damsel in distress, but she’s much more evil and manipulative. At first, she seems like the typical Queen character that is pushed aside in order to give the spotlight to the king. But once Gudrún comes face to face with an adult Amleth, she strikes like a snake with venomous words that pierce Amleth deeper than any weapon actually could. Kidman shines in the role as well as you seem to love the fact that a mother could be so cruel to one of her children.
Spoiling a film is no fun, but since The Northman is kind of bombing at the box office right now ($23.5 million opening weekend on a $70-$90 million budget) this is worth mentioning. The finale of the film takes place at the volcano Hekla, which resides at the Gates of Hel. Lava is spilling out everywhere as smoke fills the air and two grown men sword duel to the death. That’s right, the ending of The Northman has two naked men sword fighting at the base of an erupting volcano. It’s freaking nuts.
The Northman is a bloody and ferocious battle cry of a revenge film. The action is brutal and the performances are extraordinary. This is Robert Eggers at his most savage and masterful.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019 (Updated Feb 1, 2019)
First 2 acts are interesting (1 more)
MacAvoy is great
A Textbook Example On How Not To End A Trilogy
Contains spoilers, click to show
Glass is the 3rd movie in M. Night Shyamalan's pseudo superhero trilogy following Unbreakable and Split. Unfortunately it is probably the worst movie out of the three and doesn't live up to the twenty years of build-up it has had going into it. Full spoilers will be present through this review as it's kind of hard to discuss the film without spoiling anything.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Debbiereadsbook (1407 KP) rated From A Jack To A King in Books
Jul 3, 2018 (Updated Jan 31, 2019)
bloody LOVED this book! and the narration!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted both the ebook AND audio version of this book.
First half of this review is from when I READ it, the second half is the audio bit.
Oh it's been a while since I had my Scotty Cade fix, and this proper hit THAT spot!
Bay is, by his own words, pretty much a recluse. Save for promoting his latest book and getting his gambling hit, he doesn't get out much. And when he DOES, he uses his character Jack as his alter ego. Winning escort King in a card game, and coming face to face with the spitting image of Jack knocks Bay off his axis. Just as meeting Bay knocks King off of his. King doesn't see Jack, he sees BAY. He also sees that Bay might be the one to halt his recovery.
I will be honest here, cos ya'll know I'm all about sharing, and tell you, I walked into this one a little wary. I've read a couple of other porn star books and had pretty much decided that I didn't like that particular troupe, and I wouldn't read any more. But this came up, and, I mean, its' Scotty Cade for heaven's sake! So I signed up and I was so very NOT disappointed!
What this one did, what made it stand out, was there was very little "work" time for King, once he and Bay had met. There is a scene before, and one after. But the one after is a huge part of the story; a necessary and integral part.
I loved that it's nearly to the end of the book before Bay and King come together properly. Loved that Bay put his research skills to good use; both for helping King with his recovery and watching all those videos to further his relationship with King.
Loved that while previously only ever having been with women, Bay didn't seem overly perturbed by his attraction to King. OH, he questioned his sexuality, many many times, but he wasn't particularly bothered by it!
There are some difficult topics dealt with here. Bullying and how that effects Bay as an adult. Sex addiction and how that makes King so very wary of what he feels for Bay so very VERY early on. Both topics are dealt with well and with sensitivity, but some readers may struggle with them.
I have just one teeny tiny niggle, but it doesn't affect my rating or my overall enjoyment of this book. It's just ME, being a little bit picky!
I would have liked, just once, while Bay and King are up close and personal, for Bay to have used King's given name, and not his "stage" name. That's all! Told you it was me being picky!
Mr Cade has a particular knack of writing with emotion; of being able to make you cry in really random places along with his characters; of being able to grab at your heart strings, tug them, snap them and put them back together again! And I bloody loved this book for that!!
I read this in one sitting, stayed up way past my bedtime to finish this! Loved it!!
5 full and shiny stars!
AUDIO REVIEW
Kenneth Obi narrates. And Mr Obi is growing on me for several reasons. As I see more and more books narrated by him, I can see his skill set growing. A quick search shows far more books that I expected, but the oldest is only November 2017, so he is still fairly new at this, and in the time since I listened to the other one he narrated that is in my library, I can hear a difference.
Obi's voice for Bay was. . . unexpected. I've no idea WHY, but that was my first thought. He sounds almost too young, but as I listened, I realised it fit Bay, PERFECTLY, it really did. I LOVED Bay's voice, I really did.
Obi's reading voice is clear and even, his voices for ALL the characters are clear and distinct enough for my crappy hearing to make them out. It was my only real criticism in the last book I listened to of his work, the voices were too similar for my crappy hearing to keep up. NOT so here.
The scenes for King and Bay getting up close and personal came over way more. . .what's the word. . . whats. . . .the. . .word. . . intense? maybe? I dunno, can't find that right word, and I hate not being able to do that, but they came across all kinds of different to when I read it. An AMAZING different though, cos Obi got out all the emotions that you don't always pick up when reading. The hitches and dips in the voices, the little noises, they don't always come across well on paper but HEARING them?? Oh yes Sir, intense is the right word!
I stand by what I said in my read review though! I would have liked, just once, while Bay and King are up close and personal, for Bay to have used King's given name, and not his "stage" name. That's all!
Watch out for Mr Obi, he's now firmly on my list!!
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
First half of this review is from when I READ it, the second half is the audio bit.
Oh it's been a while since I had my Scotty Cade fix, and this proper hit THAT spot!
Bay is, by his own words, pretty much a recluse. Save for promoting his latest book and getting his gambling hit, he doesn't get out much. And when he DOES, he uses his character Jack as his alter ego. Winning escort King in a card game, and coming face to face with the spitting image of Jack knocks Bay off his axis. Just as meeting Bay knocks King off of his. King doesn't see Jack, he sees BAY. He also sees that Bay might be the one to halt his recovery.
I will be honest here, cos ya'll know I'm all about sharing, and tell you, I walked into this one a little wary. I've read a couple of other porn star books and had pretty much decided that I didn't like that particular troupe, and I wouldn't read any more. But this came up, and, I mean, its' Scotty Cade for heaven's sake! So I signed up and I was so very NOT disappointed!
What this one did, what made it stand out, was there was very little "work" time for King, once he and Bay had met. There is a scene before, and one after. But the one after is a huge part of the story; a necessary and integral part.
I loved that it's nearly to the end of the book before Bay and King come together properly. Loved that Bay put his research skills to good use; both for helping King with his recovery and watching all those videos to further his relationship with King.
Loved that while previously only ever having been with women, Bay didn't seem overly perturbed by his attraction to King. OH, he questioned his sexuality, many many times, but he wasn't particularly bothered by it!
There are some difficult topics dealt with here. Bullying and how that effects Bay as an adult. Sex addiction and how that makes King so very wary of what he feels for Bay so very VERY early on. Both topics are dealt with well and with sensitivity, but some readers may struggle with them.
I have just one teeny tiny niggle, but it doesn't affect my rating or my overall enjoyment of this book. It's just ME, being a little bit picky!
I would have liked, just once, while Bay and King are up close and personal, for Bay to have used King's given name, and not his "stage" name. That's all! Told you it was me being picky!
Mr Cade has a particular knack of writing with emotion; of being able to make you cry in really random places along with his characters; of being able to grab at your heart strings, tug them, snap them and put them back together again! And I bloody loved this book for that!!
I read this in one sitting, stayed up way past my bedtime to finish this! Loved it!!
5 full and shiny stars!
AUDIO REVIEW
Kenneth Obi narrates. And Mr Obi is growing on me for several reasons. As I see more and more books narrated by him, I can see his skill set growing. A quick search shows far more books that I expected, but the oldest is only November 2017, so he is still fairly new at this, and in the time since I listened to the other one he narrated that is in my library, I can hear a difference.
Obi's voice for Bay was. . . unexpected. I've no idea WHY, but that was my first thought. He sounds almost too young, but as I listened, I realised it fit Bay, PERFECTLY, it really did. I LOVED Bay's voice, I really did.
Obi's reading voice is clear and even, his voices for ALL the characters are clear and distinct enough for my crappy hearing to make them out. It was my only real criticism in the last book I listened to of his work, the voices were too similar for my crappy hearing to keep up. NOT so here.
The scenes for King and Bay getting up close and personal came over way more. . .what's the word. . . whats. . . .the. . .word. . . intense? maybe? I dunno, can't find that right word, and I hate not being able to do that, but they came across all kinds of different to when I read it. An AMAZING different though, cos Obi got out all the emotions that you don't always pick up when reading. The hitches and dips in the voices, the little noises, they don't always come across well on paper but HEARING them?? Oh yes Sir, intense is the right word!
I stand by what I said in my read review though! I would have liked, just once, while Bay and King are up close and personal, for Bay to have used King's given name, and not his "stage" name. That's all!
Watch out for Mr Obi, he's now firmly on my list!!
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Houses of Knowledge in Tabletop Games
Mar 26, 2020 (Updated Mar 26, 2020)
Museums. You know, the places you go with your family for, “fun bonding and learning experiences.” I have always been a big fan of museums. Art, Science & History, Aquariums, all of them! I like to stop and read the plaques too, but many times I am rushed along because EVERYTHING has to be seen. But did you know that museum curation could be interesting and cutthroat? I did not. Not until I played Houses of Knowledge, that is.
Houses of Knowledge pits 2-4 players against each other as museum curators desperately trying to fill their museums with interesting rooms and curious artifacts. In fact, a curator can end the competition once they are able to display eight lovely pieces in their halls. Beware, however, as the competition is also trying to gather the best gallery and may even attempt to pilfer your displayed items!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, but the final components will be exactly the same as these shown, if the pending Kickstarter campaign is successful. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers a general feel for how the game plays. You can back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setting up a game of Houses of Knowledge is quite a feat, as different decks need to be assembled according to player count. Refer to the rules to setup each deck. Once the decks are prepared and starting cards dealt to each player, create the Items and Actions markets by revealing six cards from each deck and assigning cost discs in decending order from the draw decks. Furthest away from the two draw decks will be placed the deck of Room cards, with two visible and available for purchase. These rooms will receive the leftover 5-value cost disc. Set the monicash aside to be used as a central bank. Determine the starting player and you are ready to begin!
Luckily, the game furnishes the players with reference cards so that all players have access to all options they are afforded on their turns. The first thing that happens on a turn is collecting income. Each turn a player earns 3 monicash (MC) plus the amounts earned from Rooms in their tableau. From here a turn has several options: buying Items or Actions from the market to your hand, paying 2 MC to play a card from your hand to your tableau, selling two cards for 2 MC, and buying Room cards.
When a player buys an Item or Action card from the market the new card is taken in hand, paying the cost shown on the cost disc either above or below the card taken. To play a card from hand, the player pays 2 MC to the bank and places an Item onto a corresponding Room card, or plays an Action card either on their own tableau or against an opponent.
Play continues in this fashion until one player is displaying eight Items in their Rooms or the draw decks are depleted. The round finishes completely so all players have an equal amount of turns, and then points are tallied and summed to determine the greatest curator and winner of Houses of Knowledge!
Components. As I mentioned in my disclaimer, we were provided a copy of this game for this preview. All components we were provided are finalized, so everything you see pictured here is how it will be upon a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, the components are fantastic! The cards are good quality, the cost discs are good cardboard chips, and the money is the faux-paper money we are starting to see in games nowadays – and thank heavens for that! No more cheap Monopoly money! Oh by the way, the art on this one is superb and very chic. I love it!
So the game looks and feels great, but does it play well? YES. This one is excellent! At first it feels too simple because it is relatively easy to collect Rooms and Items to fit on those Rooms, so you think, “Heck, I can get eight Items in like four rounds!” That is, until your opponents hit you with some of the Action cards they’ve been hoarding unseen by you. One “friend” maybe steals one of your Items because you neglected to assign Guards to it, or the “pal” just before you in initiative order rearranges the Item cards so that the ones you wanted are now much more expensive, thus throwing your carefully-planned tactics down the drain. Ooh, it’s great tension! My one gripe: I wish it was longer so that I could really stick it to my enem- uhh, friends.
If you are a fan of card games that pack more of a punch than it first seems, and games that keep you wanting more, whilst giving you a grand feeling of quirky opulence, then you should certainly check out Houses of Knowledge. We are happy to recommend this one. Go back it on Kickstarter when the campaign begins!
Houses of Knowledge pits 2-4 players against each other as museum curators desperately trying to fill their museums with interesting rooms and curious artifacts. In fact, a curator can end the competition once they are able to display eight lovely pieces in their halls. Beware, however, as the competition is also trying to gather the best gallery and may even attempt to pilfer your displayed items!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, but the final components will be exactly the same as these shown, if the pending Kickstarter campaign is successful. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers a general feel for how the game plays. You can back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setting up a game of Houses of Knowledge is quite a feat, as different decks need to be assembled according to player count. Refer to the rules to setup each deck. Once the decks are prepared and starting cards dealt to each player, create the Items and Actions markets by revealing six cards from each deck and assigning cost discs in decending order from the draw decks. Furthest away from the two draw decks will be placed the deck of Room cards, with two visible and available for purchase. These rooms will receive the leftover 5-value cost disc. Set the monicash aside to be used as a central bank. Determine the starting player and you are ready to begin!
Luckily, the game furnishes the players with reference cards so that all players have access to all options they are afforded on their turns. The first thing that happens on a turn is collecting income. Each turn a player earns 3 monicash (MC) plus the amounts earned from Rooms in their tableau. From here a turn has several options: buying Items or Actions from the market to your hand, paying 2 MC to play a card from your hand to your tableau, selling two cards for 2 MC, and buying Room cards.
When a player buys an Item or Action card from the market the new card is taken in hand, paying the cost shown on the cost disc either above or below the card taken. To play a card from hand, the player pays 2 MC to the bank and places an Item onto a corresponding Room card, or plays an Action card either on their own tableau or against an opponent.
Play continues in this fashion until one player is displaying eight Items in their Rooms or the draw decks are depleted. The round finishes completely so all players have an equal amount of turns, and then points are tallied and summed to determine the greatest curator and winner of Houses of Knowledge!
Components. As I mentioned in my disclaimer, we were provided a copy of this game for this preview. All components we were provided are finalized, so everything you see pictured here is how it will be upon a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, the components are fantastic! The cards are good quality, the cost discs are good cardboard chips, and the money is the faux-paper money we are starting to see in games nowadays – and thank heavens for that! No more cheap Monopoly money! Oh by the way, the art on this one is superb and very chic. I love it!
So the game looks and feels great, but does it play well? YES. This one is excellent! At first it feels too simple because it is relatively easy to collect Rooms and Items to fit on those Rooms, so you think, “Heck, I can get eight Items in like four rounds!” That is, until your opponents hit you with some of the Action cards they’ve been hoarding unseen by you. One “friend” maybe steals one of your Items because you neglected to assign Guards to it, or the “pal” just before you in initiative order rearranges the Item cards so that the ones you wanted are now much more expensive, thus throwing your carefully-planned tactics down the drain. Ooh, it’s great tension! My one gripe: I wish it was longer so that I could really stick it to my enem- uhh, friends.
If you are a fan of card games that pack more of a punch than it first seems, and games that keep you wanting more, whilst giving you a grand feeling of quirky opulence, then you should certainly check out Houses of Knowledge. We are happy to recommend this one. Go back it on Kickstarter when the campaign begins!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Sweet Tooth in TV
Jun 23, 2021
Story/Plot (2 more)
Actors/acting
Music/Soundtrack
For some the rating being TV-14 (1 more)
Some of the CGI
A Lot of Heart and A Great Story, That Lives Up To The Hype
https://youtu.be/3vw5Un4qmU8
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Oct 2, 2020 (Updated Oct 6, 2020)
Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn (2 more)
Badass fight choreography
Some really cool action sequences
I wasn't a fan of the self narration the entire film. (2 more)
I also didn't like the Tarantino-ish way of chopping up the story and going back and forth the way they did.
I feel like every character in this movie was underutilized and could have been done better or had better character development.
Birds of a Feather Can't Stick Their Landing On This One
Contains spoilers, click to show
Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is a 2020 action super hero film. Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, it is a follow-up to Suicide Squad (2016). The movie was directed by Cathy Yan and written by Christina Hodson, and it stars Margot Robbie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Rosie Perez, Chris Messina and Ewan McGregor.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
These days McDonalds is everywhere. You don’t have to travel too far before you see those familiar golden arches – in fact, there are three of them within a two mile radius of my home! I’m not personally a big fan of them, but that’s not to say I haven’t enjoyed the odd meal occasionally when in a hurry. It’s one of those things that’s just always been there in life, taken for granted without much of a thought as to how it all came to be so huge. Turns out there’s a pretty interesting story to be told involving a couple of pioneering brothers, and the guy who eventually completely screwed them over…
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.