Search
Search results
Real Racing 3
Games and Entertainment
10.0
Rate It
App
**#1 Top Free App in over 100 countries** Real Racing 3 is the award-winning franchise that sets a...
Nom Nom Paleo
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
***IMPORTANT: Please contact us with any feedback or issues at feedback@nomnompaleo.com. We'd love...
KidloLand: Kids Nursery Rhymes
Education and Games
App
KidloLand is an award-winning app for kids (1-5 yrs) with 1000+ nursery rhymes, songs, games and...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BEING THE RICARDOS (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Superb "A" plot, Boring "B" plot
When I first heard that Nicole Kidman (of all people) was set to play Lucille Ball in a bio-pic (of sorts), I was suspect over the casting.
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated NieR: Automata in Video Games
Oct 2, 2017 (Updated Oct 25, 2017)
Well developed characters, with a good amount of depth. (3 more)
Character motivations are clear and logical.
A visual feast.
A stunningly effective score.
A Genre Bending Masterclass In Game Design
There have been a good number of excellent games this year and before I played Nier it was difficult to choose my favourite game of the year so far. It is now extremely obvious.
This is one of the best games I have ever had the pleasure of playing through and it has pushed the boundaries of what I thought action RPG's could do. I had heard a lot of amazing things about this game before picking it up and I was sceptical that it was going to meet my expectations. I am happy to report that not only did it meet my expectations, but it greatly exceeded them.
The characters in this game are so well crafted. You will form an immediate opinion on each of the characters when you are first introduced to them, but be prepared to have your opinion changed multiple times. Initially likeable characters will commit despicable acts and the character you thought was a cold machine, will do something genuinely heart-warming. Even though these characters are prone to committing acts that don't necessarily match their character type, character motivations are always understandable, which is a mark of great writing.
The visuals in this game are incredible, not only in the graphical sense. The way that certain shots are framed, the way that lighting is implemented in certain environments, the fluid animations, the vast, lush natural environment; all of it is utterly stunning. Combat looks incredible, cutscenes are well timed and effective, character design is fantastic, all of this adds to the impressive visual flair of the game overall.
The audio is also significant during your playthrough, the soundtrack is so effective and well implemented. The tone is complimented by a different piece of music in each area of the game to the point that the music alone could tell you what area of the game that you are in without having to look at the screen.
The only negative feeling I have towards the game after finally completing it, was the exhaustion I felt towards the game's ending. Without spoiling anything, this game ends multiple times, each of them emotionally draining and leading to another even more complex layer of the game's overall story, to the point that finishing the entire thing feels like an endurance test and I'm not even anywhere near earning the platinum trophy! I didn't know exactly what I was getting into when I started the game and that is how I would recommend most players go into this game because you will truly be blown away, but you should know how much of your life this game is going to demand from you. If you don't have between 60-100 hours to spend, (depending on what completion rate you are aiming for,) then this will probably be too vast of an experience for you. And after finally completing the game in it's entirety, I feel exhausted and I'm not in any hurry right now to go back to the game to tackle the remaining sidequests. I feel that I have earned some time away from the game, at least for a few weeks. Normally I relish an epically long adventure, but even this pushed my limits of what a lengthy saga should be. This is the only thing that keeps me from scoring the game a perfect 10.
There is no denying that this game is very close to being a masterpiece and for those that do regard the game to be a perfect 10, I can see your point. There aren't any flaws within the game itself, mine is more of a personal problem and is proof to me at least, that you can have too much of a good thing. However, this doesn't disregard what I said previously in any way, this game does so many unique things and it does all of them impressively well. This is definitely Platinum's best game and I am glad that this fantastic experience is receiving the high level of praise that it deserves.
This is one of the best games I have ever had the pleasure of playing through and it has pushed the boundaries of what I thought action RPG's could do. I had heard a lot of amazing things about this game before picking it up and I was sceptical that it was going to meet my expectations. I am happy to report that not only did it meet my expectations, but it greatly exceeded them.
The characters in this game are so well crafted. You will form an immediate opinion on each of the characters when you are first introduced to them, but be prepared to have your opinion changed multiple times. Initially likeable characters will commit despicable acts and the character you thought was a cold machine, will do something genuinely heart-warming. Even though these characters are prone to committing acts that don't necessarily match their character type, character motivations are always understandable, which is a mark of great writing.
The visuals in this game are incredible, not only in the graphical sense. The way that certain shots are framed, the way that lighting is implemented in certain environments, the fluid animations, the vast, lush natural environment; all of it is utterly stunning. Combat looks incredible, cutscenes are well timed and effective, character design is fantastic, all of this adds to the impressive visual flair of the game overall.
The audio is also significant during your playthrough, the soundtrack is so effective and well implemented. The tone is complimented by a different piece of music in each area of the game to the point that the music alone could tell you what area of the game that you are in without having to look at the screen.
The only negative feeling I have towards the game after finally completing it, was the exhaustion I felt towards the game's ending. Without spoiling anything, this game ends multiple times, each of them emotionally draining and leading to another even more complex layer of the game's overall story, to the point that finishing the entire thing feels like an endurance test and I'm not even anywhere near earning the platinum trophy! I didn't know exactly what I was getting into when I started the game and that is how I would recommend most players go into this game because you will truly be blown away, but you should know how much of your life this game is going to demand from you. If you don't have between 60-100 hours to spend, (depending on what completion rate you are aiming for,) then this will probably be too vast of an experience for you. And after finally completing the game in it's entirety, I feel exhausted and I'm not in any hurry right now to go back to the game to tackle the remaining sidequests. I feel that I have earned some time away from the game, at least for a few weeks. Normally I relish an epically long adventure, but even this pushed my limits of what a lengthy saga should be. This is the only thing that keeps me from scoring the game a perfect 10.
There is no denying that this game is very close to being a masterpiece and for those that do regard the game to be a perfect 10, I can see your point. There aren't any flaws within the game itself, mine is more of a personal problem and is proof to me at least, that you can have too much of a good thing. However, this doesn't disregard what I said previously in any way, this game does so many unique things and it does all of them impressively well. This is definitely Platinum's best game and I am glad that this fantastic experience is receiving the high level of praise that it deserves.
Jamie (131 KP) rated Men Explain Things to Me: And Other Essays in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Poorly written (2 more)
Not intersectional
Lack of sources in the physical version
Mediocre essays, I wish I could've liked this more
Disappointment and shallow is probably the most apt descriptions I can think of when describing this book which is really sad because I usually enjoy feminist essays.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I watched The Haunting (1999). It was not an intentional watching of the movie and I actually forgot that I had watched it shortly after. Now and then, I would recall a scene and try to remember where it was from without much luck. At that time, I was not aware that it was an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House. In fact, it wasn't until more recently that I returned to my long forgotten passion for the written word. In a way, I'm a bit glad that I read the book - or in this case, listened to it.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Here we stand, at the penultimate chapter of what has become one of the most loved franchises of all time, as well as the most profitable. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and co have grown and matured right before our very eyes and its this new-found maturity which shines through in this; the first film of the final book in the Harry Potter saga.
Deathly Hallows Part 1 is once again helmed by silver screen novice David Yates and after his disastrous attempt at fashioning a movie out of the Half Blood Prince; chills were beginning to set in when his name appeared alongside the huge advertising campaign. However, after 146 magical minutes, those niggling doubts were soon erased.
The Harry Potter series had become somewhat like a trusty old steed, you know it’s going to be there for you when its supposed to, but it no longer fills you with the same excitement it once did. However, I am pleased to announce that a completely new direction of filmmaking, albeit a little late, has revitalised the series.
For any of you out there who haven’t read the book or haven’t kept up with the films thus far, good luck understanding the many twist and turns as the plot throws you from scene to scene in a melee of storylines that are incomprehensible for anyone coming to the series for the first time. This is not to say it becomes a muddled mess, however. Gladly, criticisms are really kept to a bare minimum as Radcliffe, Watson and Grint move away from the once safe haven of Hogwarts and attempt to find the elusive horcruxes that were introduced in the previous film.
Moving the trio completely away from Hogwarts was a dangerous move by J.K Rowling but thankfully David Yates has managed to make it work with references about the films humble beginnings throughout. Unfortunately, this lack of solid ground has meant that many of the saga’s most precious actors and actresses are given very little screen time, allowing the suspense to build up for what is coming next year. Dame Maggie Smith is missing completely and even Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter and Robbie Coltrane rarely have more than few words to say when they are on screen. On the plus side, Imelda Staunton and David Thewlis make a welcome return as Delores Umbridge and Remus Lupin respectively, proving their worth to the series with some great acting.
Ralph Fiennes obviously returning as Dark Lord Voldemort is fantastic and very much welcome after being absent from the 6th film.
Some new additions, including Rhys Ifans portrayal of Xenophilius Lovegood feel a little laboured and whilst being no means a bad actor, Ifans doesn’t fully suit the role and therefore leaves the scenes involving Mr. Lovegood wanting which is a shame because in the book, he became one of the most promising characters.
Praise must go to the special effects team who have been working on this latest instalment of the Potter saga. They are integrated so seamlessly into the film that you hardly even notice they are there; they are literally that perfect and work exceptionally well with David Yates’ fantastic cinematography and stunning scenery which is alongside Prisoner of Azkaban as the best in the series.
The climax is a little disappointing and abrupt but due to the film being 2 parts of 1 book; a natural ending was never on the cards. However, the filmmakers have definitely chosen a spot which will have audiences shouting at the screen in dismay after realising their final Harry Potter fix will not be in cinemas until July next year.
Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is by far the most beautifully shot movie of 2010 and has some amazing action pieces coupled with fantastic special effects and mesmerising performances from practically every actor and actress involved who looked like they really wanted to be in their roles. Prisoner of Azkaban still clinches best film in the series so far but fans will certainly not be left wanting with this stunning take on J.K. Rowling’s final book.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/11/29/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-1-2010/
Deathly Hallows Part 1 is once again helmed by silver screen novice David Yates and after his disastrous attempt at fashioning a movie out of the Half Blood Prince; chills were beginning to set in when his name appeared alongside the huge advertising campaign. However, after 146 magical minutes, those niggling doubts were soon erased.
The Harry Potter series had become somewhat like a trusty old steed, you know it’s going to be there for you when its supposed to, but it no longer fills you with the same excitement it once did. However, I am pleased to announce that a completely new direction of filmmaking, albeit a little late, has revitalised the series.
For any of you out there who haven’t read the book or haven’t kept up with the films thus far, good luck understanding the many twist and turns as the plot throws you from scene to scene in a melee of storylines that are incomprehensible for anyone coming to the series for the first time. This is not to say it becomes a muddled mess, however. Gladly, criticisms are really kept to a bare minimum as Radcliffe, Watson and Grint move away from the once safe haven of Hogwarts and attempt to find the elusive horcruxes that were introduced in the previous film.
Moving the trio completely away from Hogwarts was a dangerous move by J.K Rowling but thankfully David Yates has managed to make it work with references about the films humble beginnings throughout. Unfortunately, this lack of solid ground has meant that many of the saga’s most precious actors and actresses are given very little screen time, allowing the suspense to build up for what is coming next year. Dame Maggie Smith is missing completely and even Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter and Robbie Coltrane rarely have more than few words to say when they are on screen. On the plus side, Imelda Staunton and David Thewlis make a welcome return as Delores Umbridge and Remus Lupin respectively, proving their worth to the series with some great acting.
Ralph Fiennes obviously returning as Dark Lord Voldemort is fantastic and very much welcome after being absent from the 6th film.
Some new additions, including Rhys Ifans portrayal of Xenophilius Lovegood feel a little laboured and whilst being no means a bad actor, Ifans doesn’t fully suit the role and therefore leaves the scenes involving Mr. Lovegood wanting which is a shame because in the book, he became one of the most promising characters.
Praise must go to the special effects team who have been working on this latest instalment of the Potter saga. They are integrated so seamlessly into the film that you hardly even notice they are there; they are literally that perfect and work exceptionally well with David Yates’ fantastic cinematography and stunning scenery which is alongside Prisoner of Azkaban as the best in the series.
The climax is a little disappointing and abrupt but due to the film being 2 parts of 1 book; a natural ending was never on the cards. However, the filmmakers have definitely chosen a spot which will have audiences shouting at the screen in dismay after realising their final Harry Potter fix will not be in cinemas until July next year.
Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is by far the most beautifully shot movie of 2010 and has some amazing action pieces coupled with fantastic special effects and mesmerising performances from practically every actor and actress involved who looked like they really wanted to be in their roles. Prisoner of Azkaban still clinches best film in the series so far but fans will certainly not be left wanting with this stunning take on J.K. Rowling’s final book.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/11/29/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-1-2010/
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated Just Like in the Movies (Summer Heat) in Books
Nov 5, 2018
This review was originally posted over on Lily Loves Indie here - http://lilylovesindie.co.uk/?p=201
As with 'Right Click, Love', I really don't know where to start showering praise on this story. A happy ever after but with all the integrity and realism of the life of someone who just got lucky. Quirky, easy to relate to, completely believable and just a delight to read. There are so many things I just loved about it that I'm struggling to put them into words. That being said, you might need to wade through some gushing from myself as I try to pin down just a few key features for you....
I guess I'll start with Ava. She is so like me it is unbelievable, down to the relationships and everything (the books, the pets, the house). But I don't think that is the only reason I love her, it's her down to earth attitude to life and her personality as a whole. She's just so likeable! And so utterly believable as well! It's like she just hops out the page and starts talking to you, like a friend we probably all have (or the person we are in my case), she's just a delightful lead character. Her relationship with Morgan, and her friendship with Erica are also incredibly well written, again believable, realistic and enjoyable interactions throughout. They're all characters that we could encounter at work or amongst friends, and as a result of that we can engage with them so much easier, welcoming them into our lives like we would their real life counterparts. I've digressed, and waffled (no change there!) but what I'm getting at is that they are all fabulous characters, but especially Ava, she just has a certain something that makes her that extra bit more wonderful.
Another thing which I loved was the style in which this was written. Feeney includes everything we need to know, yet cleverly leaves little gaps to stimulate our imagination. I love finding this in a book as it gives the reader a little scope to make the characters their own, there's that little bit of wriggle room for interpretation. There's also a wonderfully dry sense of humour to Feeney's writing, a sort of wit and sarcasm that feels so natural and enjoyable to read. It makes it feel familiar, and it's more like chatting with a friend rather than reading a book. It's very well done and is so enjoyable to read, a much needed change from the ooey-gooey romances that line the shelves at the moment!
When you consider the length of the book, and the amount of content included, plus the space for your own ideas, Feeney shows great skill in developing a wonderful plot and cast of characters in such a relatively short amount of pages. This makes it so much easier for you to read because you get all the enjoyment and detail you'd find in a full length novel, yet you could easily read the story in a day without feeling you were being cheated or missing any of the action. I've not encountered many authors who has grasped such a skill for this genre and length, but Feeney is definitely one of them. She pitches it perfectly every time, doesn't miss a beat or opportunity to seize on a plot development point yet still keeps us guessing as to exactly what is going to happen. Even though I had an inkling Ava and Morgan would get it on, I in no way expected the ending that occurred!
In conclusion, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this book is rather amazing. I experienced a wide range of emotions, from warm fuzzies, to anger, laughing and crying, tutting at characters and cheering them on. For such a short story it doesn't half pack a punch, but I'm learning that this is Feeney's style. I cannot recommend this story highly enough, and really, truly, honestly think you should all go add it to Goodreads lists, and one-click it on Amazon UK or Amazon US.
As with 'Right Click, Love', I really don't know where to start showering praise on this story. A happy ever after but with all the integrity and realism of the life of someone who just got lucky. Quirky, easy to relate to, completely believable and just a delight to read. There are so many things I just loved about it that I'm struggling to put them into words. That being said, you might need to wade through some gushing from myself as I try to pin down just a few key features for you....
I guess I'll start with Ava. She is so like me it is unbelievable, down to the relationships and everything (the books, the pets, the house). But I don't think that is the only reason I love her, it's her down to earth attitude to life and her personality as a whole. She's just so likeable! And so utterly believable as well! It's like she just hops out the page and starts talking to you, like a friend we probably all have (or the person we are in my case), she's just a delightful lead character. Her relationship with Morgan, and her friendship with Erica are also incredibly well written, again believable, realistic and enjoyable interactions throughout. They're all characters that we could encounter at work or amongst friends, and as a result of that we can engage with them so much easier, welcoming them into our lives like we would their real life counterparts. I've digressed, and waffled (no change there!) but what I'm getting at is that they are all fabulous characters, but especially Ava, she just has a certain something that makes her that extra bit more wonderful.
Another thing which I loved was the style in which this was written. Feeney includes everything we need to know, yet cleverly leaves little gaps to stimulate our imagination. I love finding this in a book as it gives the reader a little scope to make the characters their own, there's that little bit of wriggle room for interpretation. There's also a wonderfully dry sense of humour to Feeney's writing, a sort of wit and sarcasm that feels so natural and enjoyable to read. It makes it feel familiar, and it's more like chatting with a friend rather than reading a book. It's very well done and is so enjoyable to read, a much needed change from the ooey-gooey romances that line the shelves at the moment!
When you consider the length of the book, and the amount of content included, plus the space for your own ideas, Feeney shows great skill in developing a wonderful plot and cast of characters in such a relatively short amount of pages. This makes it so much easier for you to read because you get all the enjoyment and detail you'd find in a full length novel, yet you could easily read the story in a day without feeling you were being cheated or missing any of the action. I've not encountered many authors who has grasped such a skill for this genre and length, but Feeney is definitely one of them. She pitches it perfectly every time, doesn't miss a beat or opportunity to seize on a plot development point yet still keeps us guessing as to exactly what is going to happen. Even though I had an inkling Ava and Morgan would get it on, I in no way expected the ending that occurred!
In conclusion, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this book is rather amazing. I experienced a wide range of emotions, from warm fuzzies, to anger, laughing and crying, tutting at characters and cheering them on. For such a short story it doesn't half pack a punch, but I'm learning that this is Feeney's style. I cannot recommend this story highly enough, and really, truly, honestly think you should all go add it to Goodreads lists, and one-click it on Amazon UK or Amazon US.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
