Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Magic Mike (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Depending on what you are looking for and what your expectations are going into it, the movie Magic Mike will either satisfy you or dissapoint you entirely.
Bad news first: If you are looking for a great plot, great storyline and phenomenal acting you will undoubtedly leave the theater disappointed.
Good news: If you are looking for a movie full of ‘good views’, some decent laughs, and men with rock-hard bodies with ripped muscles, you’ll get what you were looking for.
The movie Magic Mike, produced by Channing Tatum is loosely based on Tatum’s own experience before his acting career took off, when he spent a period of time earning a living as a male stripper. While working a roofing construction job, Mike (Tatum) meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer) and despite his young age, Mike befriends him and takes him out partying and, unbeknownst to Adam, to the strip club where Mikr works as a stripper. Mike introduces Adam to Dallas (Mathew McConaughey), the owner of the strip club, as The Kid.
.
During one of the club’s shows, one of the other strippers, “Tarzan” (Kevin Nash) passed out, and Mike pushes The Kid out on stage. It’s an awkward, unpolished performance, as one would expect from someone brand new to that particular scene, but The Kid proves to be a hit. When Adam realizes the income potential and allure of life as a stripper, he expresses interest in joining Magic Mike’s crew, and Mike and Dallas take him under their wings and teach him everything he needs to know to be successful in the business. They share tips, tricks, and outfit him with appropriate costumes. He quickly learns the dance moves and the importance of perfect timing when it comes to the pelvic thrust.
While the ‘main’ story line unfolded pretty well and the dancing and on-stage portion of the male revue club scenes were rather riveting, the attempt at bringing a romance into the story – first between Mike and Joanna (a Sociology student played by Olivia Munn) then Adam’s sister Brooke (Cody Horn) fell flat. It seemed awkward and forced, and there was no chemistry whatsoever. With a cast of stars such as McConaughey and Channing, one would expect a higher level of performance, but apparently the writer was counting on the sex appeal and dance scenes to carry the film. Instead, the audience was left with a series of awkward silences and uncomfortable, choppy dialog. Magic Mike left those in the audience that were looking for more than a two-hour male revue sadly disappointed.
We agreed that if you go wanting to see a ‘real’ movie with a ‘real’ storyline, Magic Mike rates 2 out of 5.
If you go with the expectations of ‘sex on a screen’ we rate this 4 of 5. And only 4 of 5 because we both felt uncomfortable with the ‘crotch in the face scenes’. But if you’re into that kinda thing, then by all means, 5 of 5.
Bad news first: If you are looking for a great plot, great storyline and phenomenal acting you will undoubtedly leave the theater disappointed.
Good news: If you are looking for a movie full of ‘good views’, some decent laughs, and men with rock-hard bodies with ripped muscles, you’ll get what you were looking for.
The movie Magic Mike, produced by Channing Tatum is loosely based on Tatum’s own experience before his acting career took off, when he spent a period of time earning a living as a male stripper. While working a roofing construction job, Mike (Tatum) meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer) and despite his young age, Mike befriends him and takes him out partying and, unbeknownst to Adam, to the strip club where Mikr works as a stripper. Mike introduces Adam to Dallas (Mathew McConaughey), the owner of the strip club, as The Kid.
.
During one of the club’s shows, one of the other strippers, “Tarzan” (Kevin Nash) passed out, and Mike pushes The Kid out on stage. It’s an awkward, unpolished performance, as one would expect from someone brand new to that particular scene, but The Kid proves to be a hit. When Adam realizes the income potential and allure of life as a stripper, he expresses interest in joining Magic Mike’s crew, and Mike and Dallas take him under their wings and teach him everything he needs to know to be successful in the business. They share tips, tricks, and outfit him with appropriate costumes. He quickly learns the dance moves and the importance of perfect timing when it comes to the pelvic thrust.
While the ‘main’ story line unfolded pretty well and the dancing and on-stage portion of the male revue club scenes were rather riveting, the attempt at bringing a romance into the story – first between Mike and Joanna (a Sociology student played by Olivia Munn) then Adam’s sister Brooke (Cody Horn) fell flat. It seemed awkward and forced, and there was no chemistry whatsoever. With a cast of stars such as McConaughey and Channing, one would expect a higher level of performance, but apparently the writer was counting on the sex appeal and dance scenes to carry the film. Instead, the audience was left with a series of awkward silences and uncomfortable, choppy dialog. Magic Mike left those in the audience that were looking for more than a two-hour male revue sadly disappointed.
We agreed that if you go wanting to see a ‘real’ movie with a ‘real’ storyline, Magic Mike rates 2 out of 5.
If you go with the expectations of ‘sex on a screen’ we rate this 4 of 5. And only 4 of 5 because we both felt uncomfortable with the ‘crotch in the face scenes’. But if you’re into that kinda thing, then by all means, 5 of 5.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pieces of a Woman (2020) in Movies
Dec 29, 2020
Vanessa Kirby (1 more)
The birth scene
Pieces of a Woman stars Vanessa Kirby and Shia LaBeouf as Martha and Sean, a married couple preparing for the imminent arrival of their first child. But a heartbreaking home birth leaves Martha struggling with grief and becoming increasingly isolated from Sean and her family.
If you've heard anything about Pieces of a Woman recently, it will no doubt be in relation to the home birth scene. Coming right at the start of the movie, and following a brief introduction to our two parents to be, the birth is shot in a single 22 minute take, from the point of Martha's waters breaking in the kitchen, to the arrival of the midwife and the eventual birth of the baby. As with any childbirth, there's a lot going on, a lot of emotions as the drama moves between the various rooms of the house. And everyone involved is outstanding, particularly Vanessa Kirby who is completely convincing. With the impressive, extended intro over, we cut to black and the title of the movie appears on screen. We then move onto the aftermath.
At first, we don't know exactly what went wrong with the birth and Martha and Sean do not have all of the answers either, which is essentially where a lot of the grief and tension arise from. Martha returns to work, to the shock of her co-workers, and it's clear that both her and Sean are very quickly beginning to drift apart, dealing with their grief in very different ways. Sean resorts to drinking, sleeping with Martha's cousin and having emotional outbursts, while Martha remains quietly detached from everyone and everything, and even meets with a local university to discuss donating their baby's body to medical science. Dirty plates stack up in the kitchen, house plants become limp from lack of water and attention.
We also discover that, in among all of the grief, everyone seems determined that the midwife who delivered their baby be blamed, prosecuted and sent to jail for five years, due to negligence and manslaughter. This is something which makes absolutely no sense when you first learn of it and even less sense when we finally arrive in the courtroom towards the end.
As we limp from month to month, the writing becomes worse and the film becomes increasingly frustrating and baffling. There's an impressive supporting cast of friends and family, all delivering their melodramatic monologues with flair, but the writing holds them back and prevents the movie from delivering any of the much needed emotional impact. At times, conversations appear to be badly improvised and just as it feels like we're about to get something of significance out of a scene or character, we cut to a different setting or later period in time, and all momentum is lost.
A bold, impressive 30 minute opening and a performance from Vanessa Kirby which continues to highlight just how talented she is. But apart from that, Pieces of a Woman just feels flat.
If you've heard anything about Pieces of a Woman recently, it will no doubt be in relation to the home birth scene. Coming right at the start of the movie, and following a brief introduction to our two parents to be, the birth is shot in a single 22 minute take, from the point of Martha's waters breaking in the kitchen, to the arrival of the midwife and the eventual birth of the baby. As with any childbirth, there's a lot going on, a lot of emotions as the drama moves between the various rooms of the house. And everyone involved is outstanding, particularly Vanessa Kirby who is completely convincing. With the impressive, extended intro over, we cut to black and the title of the movie appears on screen. We then move onto the aftermath.
At first, we don't know exactly what went wrong with the birth and Martha and Sean do not have all of the answers either, which is essentially where a lot of the grief and tension arise from. Martha returns to work, to the shock of her co-workers, and it's clear that both her and Sean are very quickly beginning to drift apart, dealing with their grief in very different ways. Sean resorts to drinking, sleeping with Martha's cousin and having emotional outbursts, while Martha remains quietly detached from everyone and everything, and even meets with a local university to discuss donating their baby's body to medical science. Dirty plates stack up in the kitchen, house plants become limp from lack of water and attention.
We also discover that, in among all of the grief, everyone seems determined that the midwife who delivered their baby be blamed, prosecuted and sent to jail for five years, due to negligence and manslaughter. This is something which makes absolutely no sense when you first learn of it and even less sense when we finally arrive in the courtroom towards the end.
As we limp from month to month, the writing becomes worse and the film becomes increasingly frustrating and baffling. There's an impressive supporting cast of friends and family, all delivering their melodramatic monologues with flair, but the writing holds them back and prevents the movie from delivering any of the much needed emotional impact. At times, conversations appear to be badly improvised and just as it feels like we're about to get something of significance out of a scene or character, we cut to a different setting or later period in time, and all momentum is lost.
A bold, impressive 30 minute opening and a performance from Vanessa Kirby which continues to highlight just how talented she is. But apart from that, Pieces of a Woman just feels flat.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Jane Steele in Books
May 24, 2017
Classic Retelling
This eBook was provided by the author in exchange for an honest review
“Reader, I murdered him.” Jane Steele is a gothic retelling of the renowned Jane Eyre written by the celebrated Charlotte Bronte. Crime writer, Lyndsay Faye, creates an entirely new story, whilst appropriating the skeletal structure of the original classic. However, Jane Steele is nothing like the Miss Eyre everyone is familiar with. She is far more headstrong and independent, and also a murderer.
Before readers are discouraged to hear that their beloved Jane is portrayed as a criminal, the murders that occur are more of a homicidal or self-defense nature, as opposed to premeditated serial killing. In fact the first death, occurring when she is a nine year old orphan, is not her fault at all, however it prompts Jane’s wealthy aunt to pack her off to boarding school, and thus the similarities with Jane Eyre commence.
Written in an autobiographical manner, Jane describes her years at the virulent school, where she and the other girls experience abuse at the hands of the ignoble schoolmaster. As readers will recall, Eyre’s life improves in her later school years, however Jane Steele’s education comes to a premature end, resulting in her fending for herself in 19th century London.
As the blurb indicates, Jane returns to the house she grew up in after the death of her aunt, affecting to be a governess for the current owner’s ward. Mr. Charles Thornfield, a bachelor, is Jane Steele’s version of Rochester, minus the wife in the attic. The contents of the cellar, on the other hand, are a different matter…
From a romantic point of view, all happens in a similar manner to Jane Eyre, however this is where the comparisons end. With concealed crimes and secrets, as well as an unsolved murder, the story becomes the thriller it initially proposed to be. The incisive Jane Steele takes matters into her own hands – figuratively and literally – as she determines to resolve the unanswered questions.
Although not written with the intent to be comical, the stark contrasts between original and retelling create humorous scenarios. The nature of the main character in comparison with the time frame, a period where women had very little rights, makes the narrative far more exciting and amusing than the earlier novel – although not necessarily better.
Lyndsay Faye maintains the atmosphere of the 1800s with her affinity for eloquent turns of phrase and choice of words. She is a prolific author full of wonderful ideas; her ability to create a new story out of a well-known classic is a formidable skill. What is admirable is they way in which Faye has made Jane Steele a novel in its own right, and not merely a rip-off of Bronte’s work.
The skillful composition and wording will likely be loved by all, its only downfall being the reaction of hardcore Jane Eyre fans. Those who wish for the classics to be left alone and not pulled apart by contemporary authors or film directors may adopt a negative attitude towards to publication of Jane Steele. On the other hand, many will absolutely love this gothic retelling, appreciate the similarities and enjoy the new twist to the storyline. Personally, I am with the latter group.
“Reader, I murdered him.” Jane Steele is a gothic retelling of the renowned Jane Eyre written by the celebrated Charlotte Bronte. Crime writer, Lyndsay Faye, creates an entirely new story, whilst appropriating the skeletal structure of the original classic. However, Jane Steele is nothing like the Miss Eyre everyone is familiar with. She is far more headstrong and independent, and also a murderer.
Before readers are discouraged to hear that their beloved Jane is portrayed as a criminal, the murders that occur are more of a homicidal or self-defense nature, as opposed to premeditated serial killing. In fact the first death, occurring when she is a nine year old orphan, is not her fault at all, however it prompts Jane’s wealthy aunt to pack her off to boarding school, and thus the similarities with Jane Eyre commence.
Written in an autobiographical manner, Jane describes her years at the virulent school, where she and the other girls experience abuse at the hands of the ignoble schoolmaster. As readers will recall, Eyre’s life improves in her later school years, however Jane Steele’s education comes to a premature end, resulting in her fending for herself in 19th century London.
As the blurb indicates, Jane returns to the house she grew up in after the death of her aunt, affecting to be a governess for the current owner’s ward. Mr. Charles Thornfield, a bachelor, is Jane Steele’s version of Rochester, minus the wife in the attic. The contents of the cellar, on the other hand, are a different matter…
From a romantic point of view, all happens in a similar manner to Jane Eyre, however this is where the comparisons end. With concealed crimes and secrets, as well as an unsolved murder, the story becomes the thriller it initially proposed to be. The incisive Jane Steele takes matters into her own hands – figuratively and literally – as she determines to resolve the unanswered questions.
Although not written with the intent to be comical, the stark contrasts between original and retelling create humorous scenarios. The nature of the main character in comparison with the time frame, a period where women had very little rights, makes the narrative far more exciting and amusing than the earlier novel – although not necessarily better.
Lyndsay Faye maintains the atmosphere of the 1800s with her affinity for eloquent turns of phrase and choice of words. She is a prolific author full of wonderful ideas; her ability to create a new story out of a well-known classic is a formidable skill. What is admirable is they way in which Faye has made Jane Steele a novel in its own right, and not merely a rip-off of Bronte’s work.
The skillful composition and wording will likely be loved by all, its only downfall being the reaction of hardcore Jane Eyre fans. Those who wish for the classics to be left alone and not pulled apart by contemporary authors or film directors may adopt a negative attitude towards to publication of Jane Steele. On the other hand, many will absolutely love this gothic retelling, appreciate the similarities and enjoy the new twist to the storyline. Personally, I am with the latter group.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Dangerous Method (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Dangerous Method starts as Sabine Spielrein (Knightley) is to an asylum where she is treated by Carl Jung (Fassbender) for her irrational reaction to any stimulation. In the search for answers Carl turns to Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) who has been an expert in the sexual disorders people are meant to have.
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 2, 2021 (Updated Jun 3, 2021)
The Acting- great performances by both Emma Stone and Emma Thompson (2 more)
The costume designs and wardrobe were amazing to see
The soundtrack was phenomenal - great music
Original cartoon Cruella vs this Cruella (1 more)
The pacing was sparratic and movie ran a little too long
Part Devil Wears Prada, Part The Joker, Surprisingly Splendid
https://youtu.be/Ja_Cl-9IKNI
I have to say this movie really wasn't on the top of my list for "must watch" movies as much as I like Disney movies and Emma Stone as an actress (loved her in Superbad as Jules, lol) but I really liked this movie and it was really good. Emma Stone was fantastic as Estella/Cruella and this movie really came off as a mix of Devil Wears Prada and The Joker in my opinion. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it in the beginning because I was weary of the concept of them trying to turn this villain into a good guy or giving them a compelling reason for their "villainy" ways but I'm a sucker for revenge movies. I have to say it had me right away with what happens to her mother and It was "hook, line and sinker" for me and I was along for the ride. I like how the movie kept the characters of Jasper and Horace which if I remember correctly were the name of her two helpers the skinny and fat one from the cartoons who helped her steal all those puppies so that was pretty cool as well. I really can't say how much I loved the soundtrack for this movie, it was just hit after hit, song after song the whole way through the film. Lots of great oldie music from around the times that they movie was supposed to be set in which was 1970's. There were some issues that I had with the movie like how it portrays Cruella when she's so horrible in the cartoons, how the plot turns into a whole heist situation, and how it takes until the end of the movie to answer a lot of the questions that were building up the whole movie. The movie did have good things too, such as the acting being great, especially the performances by Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the setting and time period fitting the story in 1970's London and the clothes and the fashion, not to mention the soundtrack that knocked it out of the park. I give this movie a 7/10, unfortunately it doesn't get my "must see" seal of approval and I wouldn't suggest shelling out $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription to see this movie by yourself. However, if you plan on watching as a family it is definitely worth it to watch it in the comfort of your own home and not worry about movie theater etiquette or prices especially if you have young ones. If your not in a rush to watch it, I would wait until it becomes free to watch on Disney Plus which has been announced as Friday August 27th, so around 3 months. If you want to hear more of what I thought about the movie stick around for the spoiler section review.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
https://youtu.be/PvPC_yAMwFQ
I guess my spoiler section review ran a little long so if your interested in what else I had to say check out the full review on my website or check out my spoiler section video on YouTube.
I have to say this movie really wasn't on the top of my list for "must watch" movies as much as I like Disney movies and Emma Stone as an actress (loved her in Superbad as Jules, lol) but I really liked this movie and it was really good. Emma Stone was fantastic as Estella/Cruella and this movie really came off as a mix of Devil Wears Prada and The Joker in my opinion. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it in the beginning because I was weary of the concept of them trying to turn this villain into a good guy or giving them a compelling reason for their "villainy" ways but I'm a sucker for revenge movies. I have to say it had me right away with what happens to her mother and It was "hook, line and sinker" for me and I was along for the ride. I like how the movie kept the characters of Jasper and Horace which if I remember correctly were the name of her two helpers the skinny and fat one from the cartoons who helped her steal all those puppies so that was pretty cool as well. I really can't say how much I loved the soundtrack for this movie, it was just hit after hit, song after song the whole way through the film. Lots of great oldie music from around the times that they movie was supposed to be set in which was 1970's. There were some issues that I had with the movie like how it portrays Cruella when she's so horrible in the cartoons, how the plot turns into a whole heist situation, and how it takes until the end of the movie to answer a lot of the questions that were building up the whole movie. The movie did have good things too, such as the acting being great, especially the performances by Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the setting and time period fitting the story in 1970's London and the clothes and the fashion, not to mention the soundtrack that knocked it out of the park. I give this movie a 7/10, unfortunately it doesn't get my "must see" seal of approval and I wouldn't suggest shelling out $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription to see this movie by yourself. However, if you plan on watching as a family it is definitely worth it to watch it in the comfort of your own home and not worry about movie theater etiquette or prices especially if you have young ones. If your not in a rush to watch it, I would wait until it becomes free to watch on Disney Plus which has been announced as Friday August 27th, so around 3 months. If you want to hear more of what I thought about the movie stick around for the spoiler section review.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
https://youtu.be/PvPC_yAMwFQ
I guess my spoiler section review ran a little long so if your interested in what else I had to say check out the full review on my website or check out my spoiler section video on YouTube.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Plain Bad Heroines in Books
Dec 17, 2020
Plain Bad Heroines was one of my most anticipated reads of the year. I am a sucker for a lesbian tale. Add in a Gothic New England boarding school for girls? Sold.
The story centers around two time periods. The first, 1902, at the Brookhants School for Girls, run by Libbie Brookhants. A book by a young writer, Mary MacLane has come out--one that's incredibly scandalous for the times. Two Brookhants girls, Flo and Clara, are obsessed with it and establish The Plain Bad Heroine Society. The two are in love, meeting in secret--until they are attacked by yellow jackets at their hiding spot, a copy of the book found with them. A few years later the school closes, but not until after more scandal and death. Now, our second period, over a hundred years later, where Merritt Emmons, a young writer, publishes a book about Flo and Clara's story. It inspires a horror film starring Harper Harper, a famous lesbian actress. Harper will be playing Flo and B-list actress Audrey Wells, Clara. Filming on-site at the abandoned Brookhants site, the three women converge. But soon, weird things start happening, and the curse of Brookhants seems back to haunt the set--and our three modern-day heroines.
This book is absolutely enthralling at times. I flew through these 619 pages, that's for sure. My notes state "very lesbian," which is, of course, a major plus for me. Believe me, we don't get a lot of books starring ourselves. And you know, where we are killed off by swarms of yellow jackets. I honestly found both storylines compelling. It's hard not to fall a bit in love with Harper Harper, the charismatic celebrity (out!) lesbian. And 1902 isn't just about Clara and Flo, but Libbie Brookhants and her life trying to run a cursed school in the early 1900s. Honestly, the pages really flew by most of the time. Though, there are certainly moments where I felt some of the story could have been cut.
And yes, the narrative style is different, though it really adds to the uniqueness of the book. It's basically told by an omnipresent narrator, talking directly to the reader. There are footnotes, often humorous ones, and the end result is something you don't often find. For the most part, I felt like Danforth pulled it off, too. I do think Libbie was a little more fully developed than Merritt, Harper, and Audrey, but that also may have been because that trio could come across as a bit spoiled at times.
Probably my two biggest issues with this book (regretfully): for a Gothic horror novel, it's not really that scary. There are a few creepy and eerie moments, especially in the beginning, but it never really builds up to that terrifying moment that you're expecting. And, somewhat related, the ending. We read and stick with our various tales for the entire time and then... poof! Everything just fizzles out. I was so bummed. The ending was such a disappointment after all I'd read and kept this from being a full-fledged 4 or 4.5-star read. I couldn't believe it after what we'd been through. It was like even the author was tired.
So, overall, this is an original and fascinating read. I'm certainly still advising you to read it (especially if you're queer or enjoy reading queer fiction). Just be prepared that the ending may not have that big scary moment you're expecting. 3.5 stars.
The story centers around two time periods. The first, 1902, at the Brookhants School for Girls, run by Libbie Brookhants. A book by a young writer, Mary MacLane has come out--one that's incredibly scandalous for the times. Two Brookhants girls, Flo and Clara, are obsessed with it and establish The Plain Bad Heroine Society. The two are in love, meeting in secret--until they are attacked by yellow jackets at their hiding spot, a copy of the book found with them. A few years later the school closes, but not until after more scandal and death. Now, our second period, over a hundred years later, where Merritt Emmons, a young writer, publishes a book about Flo and Clara's story. It inspires a horror film starring Harper Harper, a famous lesbian actress. Harper will be playing Flo and B-list actress Audrey Wells, Clara. Filming on-site at the abandoned Brookhants site, the three women converge. But soon, weird things start happening, and the curse of Brookhants seems back to haunt the set--and our three modern-day heroines.
This book is absolutely enthralling at times. I flew through these 619 pages, that's for sure. My notes state "very lesbian," which is, of course, a major plus for me. Believe me, we don't get a lot of books starring ourselves. And you know, where we are killed off by swarms of yellow jackets. I honestly found both storylines compelling. It's hard not to fall a bit in love with Harper Harper, the charismatic celebrity (out!) lesbian. And 1902 isn't just about Clara and Flo, but Libbie Brookhants and her life trying to run a cursed school in the early 1900s. Honestly, the pages really flew by most of the time. Though, there are certainly moments where I felt some of the story could have been cut.
And yes, the narrative style is different, though it really adds to the uniqueness of the book. It's basically told by an omnipresent narrator, talking directly to the reader. There are footnotes, often humorous ones, and the end result is something you don't often find. For the most part, I felt like Danforth pulled it off, too. I do think Libbie was a little more fully developed than Merritt, Harper, and Audrey, but that also may have been because that trio could come across as a bit spoiled at times.
Probably my two biggest issues with this book (regretfully): for a Gothic horror novel, it's not really that scary. There are a few creepy and eerie moments, especially in the beginning, but it never really builds up to that terrifying moment that you're expecting. And, somewhat related, the ending. We read and stick with our various tales for the entire time and then... poof! Everything just fizzles out. I was so bummed. The ending was such a disappointment after all I'd read and kept this from being a full-fledged 4 or 4.5-star read. I couldn't believe it after what we'd been through. It was like even the author was tired.
So, overall, this is an original and fascinating read. I'm certainly still advising you to read it (especially if you're queer or enjoy reading queer fiction). Just be prepared that the ending may not have that big scary moment you're expecting. 3.5 stars.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Transformers Revenge of the Fallen (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
In 2009, I saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in theaters during a midnight screening on its day of release. Somehow I managed to sit through a two and a half hour movie, drive home, write a review, post it, and promote it all before I went to bed that morning at 5am. Looking back, I still have no idea how something like that was accomplished while also juggling a full-time job. Needless to say, I've been eager to revisit Revenge of the Fallen ever since. Delirium begins to set in at that hour and midnight screenings are rarely ever not fun. Not to mention my skills as a movie critic have evolved greatly since then and my tastes have altered. The movie deserved a proper review with a sober state of mind. And yes, thankfully, the trip was worth taking because I'm not quite as enthusiastic about Revenge of the Fallen being such a great piece of cinema as its glaring flaws tend to overshadow what little good it had going for it.
The writing is obviously the sequel's biggest flaw and not just the storyline, but the dialogue as well. The Fallen touched down on earth all the way back in 17,000 B.C. and while we've been able to uncover the likes of cavemen existing thereabouts during that time period, there's no evidence of autobots or decepticons existing in that point in history. With the way they fight and their vast numbers, that seems pretty hard to believe. Oh, and look, Sam has held onto the shirt he wore when the world almost came to an end in the last movie and apparently hasn't ever washed it. A sliver of the allspark has just been sitting in that thing this entire time. Alice actually being a decepticon didn't feel right either. Probable maybe, but it just didn't seem to fit with all other transformers being vehicles of some kind. Meanwhile Soundwave is a satellite in this movie, but walks around on earth with some crazy worm thing in Dark of the Moon with no reason of him evolving between films.
The movie has a thing about humping, too. We see two male dogs humping on more than one occasion and Wheelie also humps the crap out of Megan Fox's leg, but that's not the only time male genitalia comes into play. We also get a good glimpse at the testicles of the Sun Harvester as John Turturro spits out a one-liner about its scrotum. Leo and his freaking out over absolutely everything is also really annoying and makes Shia LaBeouf's "BUM-BULL-BEE!!!" and "OP-TIM-US!!!" squawks feel like a breath of fresh air. Sam's parents are practically the kryptonite of the movie as they're featured way too much and in the worst of times. Sam's mom has the lamest dialogue while also overreacting to everything while his dad can't decide to let Sam go or protect him. Why they were ever even Egypt is a boggling question in itself. Why are there autobots in heaven? If Megatron's master was The Fallen and he took orders from Sentinel Prime in Dark of the Moon, just how many other Decepticons does he answer to? The questions and plot holes just seem endless.
The atrocious dialogue practically echoes through your bones. It starts with Ironhide saying, "Punk ass decepticon," and never really lets up. Between Sam's parents "smelling" a "$40,000 education," and Simmons telling everyone that what he was about to show them was "top secret" and "do not tell my mother," the bases are pretty much covered. Military sergeants listening to a kid in college seems outlandish anyway, but throwing their absolute blind faith in him seems really outrageous. I realize the cast of the movie had the writer's strike to deal with, but two of the three writers for Revenge of the Fallen also wrote Star Trek which showed none of the same problems that this movie had. The writing in a Michael Bay movie is already secondary. Throw in a writer's strike and you've got something as apocalyptic behind the camera as what's taking place on screen.
There is something entertaining deep within the loins of this cinematic abomination though. The special effects are more than satisfying and pretty much outshine the special effects in the first movie. Onscreen battles are more extraordinary, explosions are bigger, and the numbers are more massive. It feels more like an actual war this time around. Bumblebee also gets his time to shine in the sequel. His scene in the garage with Sam at the start of the movie is one of the better calm scenes in the entire thing and then there are his fight scenes. Several of the fight scenes seem inspired by Mortal Kombat; Bumblebee's spine-rip sequence and Optimus’ face ripping and hand bursting through the chest of The Fallen with its villainous heart. Optimus feels very scarcely used in the two Transformers sequels. He has a few scenes where he gets to be awesome and then spends a good portion of the movie being incapacitated. At least he was dead in this one, that's a liable excuse. In Dark of the Moon, he's basically just hanging out upside down for thirty to forty minutes while hundreds of people die. Even though The Fallen is dealt with in a matter of minutes, he is kind of cool. He teleports a lot like Nightcrawler and is voiced by Tony Todd. Unfortunately, he's only appealing on the surface, kind of sucks as a main villain, and is a total embarrassment to the decepticons.
Michael Bay needs to learn that more explosions and more destructive mayhem don't automatically make a film better than its predecessor. There are more battles between the autobots and decepticons, the stakes are higher, and the special effects are more impressive, but it's essentially just eye candy or like giving reconstructive facial surgery to a really hideous person; they're still ugly but their appearance is at least nice to look at now. With a storyline that jumps all over the place for no rhyme or reason, really terrible dialogue being spewed from just about every major character, and The Twins probably being more offensive than they are humorous, Revenge of the Fallen falls short of being half as good as Bay's original effort and is quite difficult to think of as anything more than a guilty pleasure.
The writing is obviously the sequel's biggest flaw and not just the storyline, but the dialogue as well. The Fallen touched down on earth all the way back in 17,000 B.C. and while we've been able to uncover the likes of cavemen existing thereabouts during that time period, there's no evidence of autobots or decepticons existing in that point in history. With the way they fight and their vast numbers, that seems pretty hard to believe. Oh, and look, Sam has held onto the shirt he wore when the world almost came to an end in the last movie and apparently hasn't ever washed it. A sliver of the allspark has just been sitting in that thing this entire time. Alice actually being a decepticon didn't feel right either. Probable maybe, but it just didn't seem to fit with all other transformers being vehicles of some kind. Meanwhile Soundwave is a satellite in this movie, but walks around on earth with some crazy worm thing in Dark of the Moon with no reason of him evolving between films.
The movie has a thing about humping, too. We see two male dogs humping on more than one occasion and Wheelie also humps the crap out of Megan Fox's leg, but that's not the only time male genitalia comes into play. We also get a good glimpse at the testicles of the Sun Harvester as John Turturro spits out a one-liner about its scrotum. Leo and his freaking out over absolutely everything is also really annoying and makes Shia LaBeouf's "BUM-BULL-BEE!!!" and "OP-TIM-US!!!" squawks feel like a breath of fresh air. Sam's parents are practically the kryptonite of the movie as they're featured way too much and in the worst of times. Sam's mom has the lamest dialogue while also overreacting to everything while his dad can't decide to let Sam go or protect him. Why they were ever even Egypt is a boggling question in itself. Why are there autobots in heaven? If Megatron's master was The Fallen and he took orders from Sentinel Prime in Dark of the Moon, just how many other Decepticons does he answer to? The questions and plot holes just seem endless.
The atrocious dialogue practically echoes through your bones. It starts with Ironhide saying, "Punk ass decepticon," and never really lets up. Between Sam's parents "smelling" a "$40,000 education," and Simmons telling everyone that what he was about to show them was "top secret" and "do not tell my mother," the bases are pretty much covered. Military sergeants listening to a kid in college seems outlandish anyway, but throwing their absolute blind faith in him seems really outrageous. I realize the cast of the movie had the writer's strike to deal with, but two of the three writers for Revenge of the Fallen also wrote Star Trek which showed none of the same problems that this movie had. The writing in a Michael Bay movie is already secondary. Throw in a writer's strike and you've got something as apocalyptic behind the camera as what's taking place on screen.
There is something entertaining deep within the loins of this cinematic abomination though. The special effects are more than satisfying and pretty much outshine the special effects in the first movie. Onscreen battles are more extraordinary, explosions are bigger, and the numbers are more massive. It feels more like an actual war this time around. Bumblebee also gets his time to shine in the sequel. His scene in the garage with Sam at the start of the movie is one of the better calm scenes in the entire thing and then there are his fight scenes. Several of the fight scenes seem inspired by Mortal Kombat; Bumblebee's spine-rip sequence and Optimus’ face ripping and hand bursting through the chest of The Fallen with its villainous heart. Optimus feels very scarcely used in the two Transformers sequels. He has a few scenes where he gets to be awesome and then spends a good portion of the movie being incapacitated. At least he was dead in this one, that's a liable excuse. In Dark of the Moon, he's basically just hanging out upside down for thirty to forty minutes while hundreds of people die. Even though The Fallen is dealt with in a matter of minutes, he is kind of cool. He teleports a lot like Nightcrawler and is voiced by Tony Todd. Unfortunately, he's only appealing on the surface, kind of sucks as a main villain, and is a total embarrassment to the decepticons.
Michael Bay needs to learn that more explosions and more destructive mayhem don't automatically make a film better than its predecessor. There are more battles between the autobots and decepticons, the stakes are higher, and the special effects are more impressive, but it's essentially just eye candy or like giving reconstructive facial surgery to a really hideous person; they're still ugly but their appearance is at least nice to look at now. With a storyline that jumps all over the place for no rhyme or reason, really terrible dialogue being spewed from just about every major character, and The Twins probably being more offensive than they are humorous, Revenge of the Fallen falls short of being half as good as Bay's original effort and is quite difficult to think of as anything more than a guilty pleasure.
honingwords (32 KP) rated After Mrs Hamilton in Books
Jul 5, 2018 (Updated Jul 6, 2018)
It’s an absolute masterpiece.
I’m going to go out on a limb here. I think After Mrs Hamilton by Clare Ashton is my all time favourite book.
Ever.
In any genre.
Normally when I recommend a book to a friend I’ll drop it into conversation. If I really like it I’ll send you a link to a review and follow up a few days later with a question on how you got on with it.
With this one I bought you your own copy, cos you ain’t getting mine, I opened it at the beginning and thrust it into your hands, I took your phone off the hook AND I rang your boss to tell her you won’t be in tomorrow morning.
Here’s a duvet for you too - you’ll be under it until the end.
Did I say favourite book?
Of all time.
And quite rightly so. It’s an absolute masterpiece.
This was my Book Club’s book of the month and it was suggested to me at a time when I was becoming jaded with the sheer number of books set in America, which I’d been reading up to then. It opened me up to an author I’d never heard of before, who sets her books in England and Wales. One who has come up with an original plot that starts off gently unfolding, before twisting and turning to a most unpredictable ending.
I absolutely devoured it.
I wanted to re-open it immediately the last page closed, but forced myself to wait using the interim to read Clare Ashton’s other books in quick succession. I had to see if the absolute need to re-immerse myself in her addictive, easy to read, rich in description, style would continue to be as strong. Also, I needed a clear period of time in front of me to allow for the fact the characters would take over my life again.
After over ten years of reading lesfic Clare Ashton is now the one I use to compare all other authors. I’m slightly worried that I can’t decide which of her novels is my favourite, but as this is the first one I read, it probably takes pride of place.
I’d say there are five or six characters to pay attention to but Clo is the main one. The plot revolves around her friends and family but, more specifically, it is woven around a web of coincidences. Coincidences about people who each have secrets and who may have known each other in the past, coincidences about where they lived and met, coincidences about how their pasts and futures may be intertwined.
Coincidences which prove just how small the world really is, especially if you ever lived in Middle Heyford.
Clare deals with two taboo subjects. The first is that Clo works for Marella as an escort to women. (“Prostitution. You can call it what it is,” says Clo.) She uses the income to allow her to care for her arthritic grandmother Amelia.
The second taboo subject I will let you find out for yourself, but for the record, I am not squeamish about it and think Clare was extremely brave to include it. I found myself nodding along with Clo’s reaction.
The novel begins with Marella interviewing her new client, Mrs Hamilton. Marella is the lynch pin to everything, yet we learn little about her throughout the book and she isn’t in many scenes. She is vitally important; there would be no story without her, yet Clare manages to allow Marella to stay mainly in the shadows. I would very much like to see future stories with her in them and think it is a huge shame Clare has no plans to visit this storyline again.
Clo knows Laura from university and Susan from living in Middle Heyford. Clo’s grandmother Amelia is the mother of Alice who has a special page all to herself in my imaginary book “People I’d Like To Punch In The Face” and Helen is Susan’s dead Mother’s sister. The intricate relationships between the characters are all explained as you go along but it is difficult to keep them all straight in your head, unless you either pay very good attention, or draw an L Word type chart for them, which is what I ended up doing.
Mrs Hamilton tells us she is fifty-four and throughout the book Clare refers to her, and certainly Mrs Hamilton thinks of herself, as an older woman. Clo meets with her professionally at the beginning and it is their mutual attraction which is explored throughout the rest of the book. There is an age difference there but it is not an issue for either of them.
There is a little part of me which wants to rebel against the idea that fifty-four is old though, and I wonder now that since the publication of the book was in 2012, and Clare is five years closer to Mrs Hamilton’s age now, would she still consider fifty-four year old skin to be ageing and mottled?
On that point, with me coming along five years after publication, I have to say there is nothing in the novel to date it. It is as fresh today as it would have been back then. Five years isn't long enough to notice too much, but I’m going to predict that readers in another twenty years will be saying this novel is ‘timeless.’
By necessity, there are a few back stories to wade through - the two main sets of characters could, possibly, have been dealt with in two books instead of one. At 308 pages this is a fairly long book, at the beginning it flows a tad more slowly than in the later chapters, but I’m sticking with my first impressions on it, and I wouldn’t have wanted Clare to have handled it any other way.
I like all the main characters. Amelia is so important to Clo and I am relieved when she returns home after a trip away and want to hug her! I like Laura, but feel she may be a high maintenance friend! I think Susan and I would be friends in real life. Clo’s father, Edward is a frustrating coward of a man, but is in an important scene with Clo’s lover and I melted a little towards him when she blurts out “I’m in love with your daughter’” and he says “Well I had gathered that.” Other than Clare’s well-written sex scenes this, and the few paragraphs leading up to it, would be my favourite part of the book.
One character has to deal with what I would suggest is a ‘betrayal by omission’ - others, those closest to her, know facts about her but don’t let her in on the secret. When it all comes out she seems able to accept this, after only a very short time adjusting. This isn't something I could have coped with and this is the one thing that made me uncomfortable during the book and the time mulling it over immediately after.
There are three points in this story when I spoke out loud. There was an
Oh!
A
Huh!
And finally an
OH MY GOD!
There is a split at the end - one side gets their happily ever after and the other story is one where we are left with a total absence of a conclusion. It was about a day later before I realised I didn’t know what happened with that story line and had to go back and reread the ending! Yup, there is nothing - we are left to make our own minds up!
Clare has been known to say that she is in denial about her breast obsession, but there are no fewer than 50 times the word ‘breast’ is used in this book and I loved every single one of them! I’m hoping she continues to not have any breast obsession in her future work!
After finishing the book the first time I added a category to help me rate books I am reviewing. I added “Should this be made into a film?” because it was a most definite YES! for After Mrs Hamilton.
The second time round I am about to add another category: Would I cherish a signed copy of this book? Errr YES!
My advice is to read this once. Then, with the knowledge you have at the end, go and read it again. Clare has so many clues and references cleverly placed throughout which you may think are just lovely details at the time, but they are actually very important to being able to fully understand the book.
It’s nearly impossible to sleep until this story is fully unravelled. Read it during a weekend when you have no work to worry about because otherwise you will want to pull a sickie.
Ever.
In any genre.
Normally when I recommend a book to a friend I’ll drop it into conversation. If I really like it I’ll send you a link to a review and follow up a few days later with a question on how you got on with it.
With this one I bought you your own copy, cos you ain’t getting mine, I opened it at the beginning and thrust it into your hands, I took your phone off the hook AND I rang your boss to tell her you won’t be in tomorrow morning.
Here’s a duvet for you too - you’ll be under it until the end.
Did I say favourite book?
Of all time.
And quite rightly so. It’s an absolute masterpiece.
This was my Book Club’s book of the month and it was suggested to me at a time when I was becoming jaded with the sheer number of books set in America, which I’d been reading up to then. It opened me up to an author I’d never heard of before, who sets her books in England and Wales. One who has come up with an original plot that starts off gently unfolding, before twisting and turning to a most unpredictable ending.
I absolutely devoured it.
I wanted to re-open it immediately the last page closed, but forced myself to wait using the interim to read Clare Ashton’s other books in quick succession. I had to see if the absolute need to re-immerse myself in her addictive, easy to read, rich in description, style would continue to be as strong. Also, I needed a clear period of time in front of me to allow for the fact the characters would take over my life again.
After over ten years of reading lesfic Clare Ashton is now the one I use to compare all other authors. I’m slightly worried that I can’t decide which of her novels is my favourite, but as this is the first one I read, it probably takes pride of place.
I’d say there are five or six characters to pay attention to but Clo is the main one. The plot revolves around her friends and family but, more specifically, it is woven around a web of coincidences. Coincidences about people who each have secrets and who may have known each other in the past, coincidences about where they lived and met, coincidences about how their pasts and futures may be intertwined.
Coincidences which prove just how small the world really is, especially if you ever lived in Middle Heyford.
Clare deals with two taboo subjects. The first is that Clo works for Marella as an escort to women. (“Prostitution. You can call it what it is,” says Clo.) She uses the income to allow her to care for her arthritic grandmother Amelia.
The second taboo subject I will let you find out for yourself, but for the record, I am not squeamish about it and think Clare was extremely brave to include it. I found myself nodding along with Clo’s reaction.
The novel begins with Marella interviewing her new client, Mrs Hamilton. Marella is the lynch pin to everything, yet we learn little about her throughout the book and she isn’t in many scenes. She is vitally important; there would be no story without her, yet Clare manages to allow Marella to stay mainly in the shadows. I would very much like to see future stories with her in them and think it is a huge shame Clare has no plans to visit this storyline again.
Clo knows Laura from university and Susan from living in Middle Heyford. Clo’s grandmother Amelia is the mother of Alice who has a special page all to herself in my imaginary book “People I’d Like To Punch In The Face” and Helen is Susan’s dead Mother’s sister. The intricate relationships between the characters are all explained as you go along but it is difficult to keep them all straight in your head, unless you either pay very good attention, or draw an L Word type chart for them, which is what I ended up doing.
Mrs Hamilton tells us she is fifty-four and throughout the book Clare refers to her, and certainly Mrs Hamilton thinks of herself, as an older woman. Clo meets with her professionally at the beginning and it is their mutual attraction which is explored throughout the rest of the book. There is an age difference there but it is not an issue for either of them.
There is a little part of me which wants to rebel against the idea that fifty-four is old though, and I wonder now that since the publication of the book was in 2012, and Clare is five years closer to Mrs Hamilton’s age now, would she still consider fifty-four year old skin to be ageing and mottled?
On that point, with me coming along five years after publication, I have to say there is nothing in the novel to date it. It is as fresh today as it would have been back then. Five years isn't long enough to notice too much, but I’m going to predict that readers in another twenty years will be saying this novel is ‘timeless.’
By necessity, there are a few back stories to wade through - the two main sets of characters could, possibly, have been dealt with in two books instead of one. At 308 pages this is a fairly long book, at the beginning it flows a tad more slowly than in the later chapters, but I’m sticking with my first impressions on it, and I wouldn’t have wanted Clare to have handled it any other way.
I like all the main characters. Amelia is so important to Clo and I am relieved when she returns home after a trip away and want to hug her! I like Laura, but feel she may be a high maintenance friend! I think Susan and I would be friends in real life. Clo’s father, Edward is a frustrating coward of a man, but is in an important scene with Clo’s lover and I melted a little towards him when she blurts out “I’m in love with your daughter’” and he says “Well I had gathered that.” Other than Clare’s well-written sex scenes this, and the few paragraphs leading up to it, would be my favourite part of the book.
One character has to deal with what I would suggest is a ‘betrayal by omission’ - others, those closest to her, know facts about her but don’t let her in on the secret. When it all comes out she seems able to accept this, after only a very short time adjusting. This isn't something I could have coped with and this is the one thing that made me uncomfortable during the book and the time mulling it over immediately after.
There are three points in this story when I spoke out loud. There was an
Oh!
A
Huh!
And finally an
OH MY GOD!
There is a split at the end - one side gets their happily ever after and the other story is one where we are left with a total absence of a conclusion. It was about a day later before I realised I didn’t know what happened with that story line and had to go back and reread the ending! Yup, there is nothing - we are left to make our own minds up!
Clare has been known to say that she is in denial about her breast obsession, but there are no fewer than 50 times the word ‘breast’ is used in this book and I loved every single one of them! I’m hoping she continues to not have any breast obsession in her future work!
After finishing the book the first time I added a category to help me rate books I am reviewing. I added “Should this be made into a film?” because it was a most definite YES! for After Mrs Hamilton.
The second time round I am about to add another category: Would I cherish a signed copy of this book? Errr YES!
My advice is to read this once. Then, with the knowledge you have at the end, go and read it again. Clare has so many clues and references cleverly placed throughout which you may think are just lovely details at the time, but they are actually very important to being able to fully understand the book.
It’s nearly impossible to sleep until this story is fully unravelled. Read it during a weekend when you have no work to worry about because otherwise you will want to pull a sickie.
