Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Frost in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
Ah, my first Norse mythology book (okay, I have another one by another author, but I'm a little hesitant on reading another of their works...).
For a debut novelist who started the book on Wattpad, <i>Frost</i> isn't that bad of a book. Latimer does a great job with building the world of Jotunheim (there's another name, but that's the easiest I remember) it's an icy world with frost giants, and there's magic to keep the ice palace from falling apart, etc. I personally think the entire world is really cool, and I would totally hop on an airplane to visit the place if it were real and I wouldn't get hypothermia from the moment I actually step off the plane.
Regardless, though, <i>Frost</i> had a decent grasp on a lot of elements that didn't make too much of an impact on me, not to mention the fact there aren't much Norse mythology going on here. The author is really using Norse mythology as a base and using the usual tropes of young adult fiction to fluff it up.
The writing style? I feel like there's something missing, but maybe it's because there's this gap when it comes to my relationship with Wattpad works. I'm not exactly used to Wattpad works, so I'm a little lenient in this department.
The characters? Petty, petty, petty. Too much pettiness going on here. Too much flawlessness and perfection going on with the jotun. I swear there is so much perfection going on with them, the only flaw they probably have is they're assholes. It's enough that "jerk" is not simply not good enough of a word to describe those jotun.
Most, if not all, hate Megan simply because she is the queen's favorite. They strive to take her down and pretty much urge her to leave, and they do it through threats and attacks. Meanwhile, the queen is completely unbelievable for doting on Megan MEGAN IS A STRANGER, FOR GODS' SAKES. But Latimer establishes the fact her frosty majesty is perhaps a little cuckoo in the head you're forgiven, I suppose.
And then there's Megan and Amora where do the boundaries between them end? Megan is called Amora, Amora is Amora, Megan is Megan. With all of the characters calling Megan, "Amora," it took a long while to get used to the fact Megan's "given" name by her frosty majesty is "Amora." However, at no point in the book does Latimer mention why Megan was given the name of Amora. Thus, assumptions must be made, and I personally believe it's grief and guilt.
Megan, on the other hand, is not exactly as insecure as she thinks. She's secretly brave, and I like her. I would like to say, however, that she is quite naïve in the beginning when she is running from Loki. She makes poor decisions that are worth facepalming using a credit card, even if it is not her own? Bad idea. They can still track you. (Must be a media hermit.)
The plot and storyline? Weak, but not that weak. I personally think the jotun being vengeful for a good part of the book probably played a big role in the weak plot. In the long run, I think Latimer probably didn't go into much detail with the overall plot because there seems to be a sequel coming in the future.
If anything, <i>Frost</i> is really just a book where the main character learns something unusual about herself and discovers who, or what, she really is. As mentioned before, there really isn't much from Norse mythology coming from this one, but I sure hope if there is a sequel, there are a lot more mythological elements used.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-frost-by-e-latimer/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Ah, my first Norse mythology book (okay, I have another one by another author, but I'm a little hesitant on reading another of their works...).
For a debut novelist who started the book on Wattpad, <i>Frost</i> isn't that bad of a book. Latimer does a great job with building the world of Jotunheim (there's another name, but that's the easiest I remember) it's an icy world with frost giants, and there's magic to keep the ice palace from falling apart, etc. I personally think the entire world is really cool, and I would totally hop on an airplane to visit the place if it were real and I wouldn't get hypothermia from the moment I actually step off the plane.
Regardless, though, <i>Frost</i> had a decent grasp on a lot of elements that didn't make too much of an impact on me, not to mention the fact there aren't much Norse mythology going on here. The author is really using Norse mythology as a base and using the usual tropes of young adult fiction to fluff it up.
The writing style? I feel like there's something missing, but maybe it's because there's this gap when it comes to my relationship with Wattpad works. I'm not exactly used to Wattpad works, so I'm a little lenient in this department.
The characters? Petty, petty, petty. Too much pettiness going on here. Too much flawlessness and perfection going on with the jotun. I swear there is so much perfection going on with them, the only flaw they probably have is they're assholes. It's enough that "jerk" is not simply not good enough of a word to describe those jotun.
Most, if not all, hate Megan simply because she is the queen's favorite. They strive to take her down and pretty much urge her to leave, and they do it through threats and attacks. Meanwhile, the queen is completely unbelievable for doting on Megan MEGAN IS A STRANGER, FOR GODS' SAKES. But Latimer establishes the fact her frosty majesty is perhaps a little cuckoo in the head you're forgiven, I suppose.
And then there's Megan and Amora where do the boundaries between them end? Megan is called Amora, Amora is Amora, Megan is Megan. With all of the characters calling Megan, "Amora," it took a long while to get used to the fact Megan's "given" name by her frosty majesty is "Amora." However, at no point in the book does Latimer mention why Megan was given the name of Amora. Thus, assumptions must be made, and I personally believe it's grief and guilt.
Megan, on the other hand, is not exactly as insecure as she thinks. She's secretly brave, and I like her. I would like to say, however, that she is quite naïve in the beginning when she is running from Loki. She makes poor decisions that are worth facepalming using a credit card, even if it is not her own? Bad idea. They can still track you. (Must be a media hermit.)
The plot and storyline? Weak, but not that weak. I personally think the jotun being vengeful for a good part of the book probably played a big role in the weak plot. In the long run, I think Latimer probably didn't go into much detail with the overall plot because there seems to be a sequel coming in the future.
If anything, <i>Frost</i> is really just a book where the main character learns something unusual about herself and discovers who, or what, she really is. As mentioned before, there really isn't much from Norse mythology coming from this one, but I sure hope if there is a sequel, there are a lot more mythological elements used.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-frost-by-e-latimer/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Faerie Prince (Creepy Hollow, #2) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Author in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<b>It's weird to get back into a series after over an entire year.</b> Everything that happened back in the <a title="Read Sophia's review of The Faerie Guardian" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-faerie-guardian-by-rachel-morgan/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">first <i>Creepy Hollow</i> book</a> has either been entirely forgotten or stored away and wouldn't be recovered unless Rachel Morgan refreshed me in the sequel.
I suppose the memorable ones the ones I'm extremely passionate or enraged about are the ones that are remembered. Someone do an experiment on this. I digress.
<b>The second book in the <i>Creepy Hollow</i> series brings us back to Creepy Hollow (of course)</b>, shortly after Violet was handed over to the Unseelie Court by Nate, a half human and half faerie she fell in love with. Violet and Ryn decide to forget their ugly past and become friends, and Violet gets her final assignment as a trainee before becoming a guardian and finding out whether or not she gets the top prize of her graduating class.
<i>The Faerie Prince</i> <b>isn't exactly as action-packed</b> this time, mainly focusing on Violet's final assignment as a trainee before graduation definitely <b>the slowest out of all three books in this first arc of the series</b> (I just hope Morgan doesn't pull off a Cassandra Clare/Erin Hunter). It's more of an observation, lose the magic, and walk home in midst of <b>developing the overall plot of the first arc and Violet's relationship with Ryn.</b>
Reading <i>The Faerie Prince</i> probably <b>opened up my eyes on quite a few things about the series</b> that I probably wouldn't have noticed while reading the first book, and had I actually read the first book again this year, I may not have rated it as high as I did. However, <b>the series definitely has the majority of everything I would want in a book:</b>
<b>A fantastic main character Violet is just like any other ordinary teenager</b>, even if she's not a human. She has her moments and her quirks. She's extremely determined, wanting to do things on her own if at all possible without any help. She also <b>kicks butt and she has an attitude filled with sass and the occasional sarcasm that makes the book more entertaining</b>. It certainly made the second book entertaining. I suppose part of that sarcasm is to be blamed on Ryn.
<b>The writing</b> It's fantastic. The way Morgan writes, <b>you can almost <i>feel</i> Violet's emotions</b> her anxiety, fear, nervousness, happiness, joy, etc.
<blockquote>Oh dear Seelie Queen I'm going to trip in these heels and land on my butt and my dress will tear right down the middle and everyone will see my ridiculous enchanted underwear and </blockquote>
<b>A world I want to live in</b> I would love to live in Creepy Hollow. It might just be the faeries and other cool creatures (like Filigree, who I want as a pet), but <b>I imagine the world to be absolutely magical and fantastical</b>. I even want a story from another guild, so long as the traditions are different. Maybe from another creature? (I repeat: I seriously don't want a bunch of spin-offs, but that topic will be discussed another day.)
<b>The ending of <i>The Faerie Prince</i>, however, felt a little abrupt. It also felt appropriate for some unknown reason</b>, but with the slowness of the book, the fast ending just felt skewed and a little out of place. <b>Everything seems to be going well and peachy for Violet, but all of a sudden, everything just falls apart and the book ends.</b>
I'm not too sure how I feel about that.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-faerie-prince-by-rachel-morgan/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<b>It's weird to get back into a series after over an entire year.</b> Everything that happened back in the <a title="Read Sophia's review of The Faerie Guardian" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-faerie-guardian-by-rachel-morgan/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">first <i>Creepy Hollow</i> book</a> has either been entirely forgotten or stored away and wouldn't be recovered unless Rachel Morgan refreshed me in the sequel.
I suppose the memorable ones the ones I'm extremely passionate or enraged about are the ones that are remembered. Someone do an experiment on this. I digress.
<b>The second book in the <i>Creepy Hollow</i> series brings us back to Creepy Hollow (of course)</b>, shortly after Violet was handed over to the Unseelie Court by Nate, a half human and half faerie she fell in love with. Violet and Ryn decide to forget their ugly past and become friends, and Violet gets her final assignment as a trainee before becoming a guardian and finding out whether or not she gets the top prize of her graduating class.
<i>The Faerie Prince</i> <b>isn't exactly as action-packed</b> this time, mainly focusing on Violet's final assignment as a trainee before graduation definitely <b>the slowest out of all three books in this first arc of the series</b> (I just hope Morgan doesn't pull off a Cassandra Clare/Erin Hunter). It's more of an observation, lose the magic, and walk home in midst of <b>developing the overall plot of the first arc and Violet's relationship with Ryn.</b>
Reading <i>The Faerie Prince</i> probably <b>opened up my eyes on quite a few things about the series</b> that I probably wouldn't have noticed while reading the first book, and had I actually read the first book again this year, I may not have rated it as high as I did. However, <b>the series definitely has the majority of everything I would want in a book:</b>
<b>A fantastic main character Violet is just like any other ordinary teenager</b>, even if she's not a human. She has her moments and her quirks. She's extremely determined, wanting to do things on her own if at all possible without any help. She also <b>kicks butt and she has an attitude filled with sass and the occasional sarcasm that makes the book more entertaining</b>. It certainly made the second book entertaining. I suppose part of that sarcasm is to be blamed on Ryn.
<b>The writing</b> It's fantastic. The way Morgan writes, <b>you can almost <i>feel</i> Violet's emotions</b> her anxiety, fear, nervousness, happiness, joy, etc.
<blockquote>Oh dear Seelie Queen I'm going to trip in these heels and land on my butt and my dress will tear right down the middle and everyone will see my ridiculous enchanted underwear and </blockquote>
<b>A world I want to live in</b> I would love to live in Creepy Hollow. It might just be the faeries and other cool creatures (like Filigree, who I want as a pet), but <b>I imagine the world to be absolutely magical and fantastical</b>. I even want a story from another guild, so long as the traditions are different. Maybe from another creature? (I repeat: I seriously don't want a bunch of spin-offs, but that topic will be discussed another day.)
<b>The ending of <i>The Faerie Prince</i>, however, felt a little abrupt. It also felt appropriate for some unknown reason</b>, but with the slowness of the book, the fast ending just felt skewed and a little out of place. <b>Everything seems to be going well and peachy for Violet, but all of a sudden, everything just falls apart and the book ends.</b>
I'm not too sure how I feel about that.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-faerie-prince-by-rachel-morgan/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Devil's Workshop in Books
Jan 10, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
The Devil’s Workshop by Donnally Miller is one of the few books that I felt like I had to read twice, and did. Even after that I still feel like I am missing quite a bit of what this book has to offer. If there were ever a book that deserves to be torn apart (and I mean that in the best possible sense) and be studied in depth to have all the hidden meanings exposed this is it. However, I am not the one to do it.
Tom and Katie love each other to the point that when Tom leaves to work on a ship for a while, Katie gives him an extremely special engraved pocket watch to take with him. Little does Tom know, he helped bury the Son of Light shortly before leaving and this has thrown the world into chaos. Katie loses her job at the mansion where she lives and finds herself traveling with a dog and a lovesick man whom she has no affection for on a journey to find Tom. Meanwhile, Tom has lost Katie’s pocket watch, was thrown overboard, and is trying to make his way back to her. Thanks to Deirdre, The Queen of the Witches, the journey these two lovers are on is excruciatingly long and dangerous.
The Indians who live peacefully in the Forest have started to band together in preparation for driving “the white man” back into the sea where they came from. Slaves have also started rebelling all along the Coast and are being hunted by a military who wants them destroyed. Making things even worse Pirates are causing the roads to be unsafe for travelers and Tom finds himself mixed up with them. All the while Deirdre is playing her games with each of the separate groups. The only way to set everything right once more is to create a new Child of Light.
I enjoyed how all the characters seem to cross paths at one point or another in ways that are more natural than forced by the author. All the trials that Tom and Katie are willing to endure in an attempt to see each other again restore a person’s faith in humanity and love. At the same time, the book forces the reader to question just what is love and why will we go to the ends of the Earth for it. What I did not like was that there were a few different times where I would lose track of who was talking or what was going on. I am not sure if this was in any way due to how the book was written or because I was not devoting the amount of attention to the book as it deserves. Even so philosophical books are expected to confuse readers at times and force them to re-evaluate passages, so it in no way changes my opinion of this book.
I would only recommend this book to adult readers. While there is nothing inappropriate for readers in high school, the philosophy would probably be a bit much for them. The casual reader should also be prepared for a long and at times difficult read. Nonetheless, I rate this book to be a perfect 4 out of 4. People who do not realize what kind of book this is would probably put it down during the first few chapters and give it a low rating for being hard to read. Those that realize what they are reading will find that the seemingly random ramblings do make sense if you slow down. There is a wonderful plotline and a beautiful love story (thankfully not a mushy one) that takes place throughout the book if readers are willing to take their time and look.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Tom and Katie love each other to the point that when Tom leaves to work on a ship for a while, Katie gives him an extremely special engraved pocket watch to take with him. Little does Tom know, he helped bury the Son of Light shortly before leaving and this has thrown the world into chaos. Katie loses her job at the mansion where she lives and finds herself traveling with a dog and a lovesick man whom she has no affection for on a journey to find Tom. Meanwhile, Tom has lost Katie’s pocket watch, was thrown overboard, and is trying to make his way back to her. Thanks to Deirdre, The Queen of the Witches, the journey these two lovers are on is excruciatingly long and dangerous.
The Indians who live peacefully in the Forest have started to band together in preparation for driving “the white man” back into the sea where they came from. Slaves have also started rebelling all along the Coast and are being hunted by a military who wants them destroyed. Making things even worse Pirates are causing the roads to be unsafe for travelers and Tom finds himself mixed up with them. All the while Deirdre is playing her games with each of the separate groups. The only way to set everything right once more is to create a new Child of Light.
I enjoyed how all the characters seem to cross paths at one point or another in ways that are more natural than forced by the author. All the trials that Tom and Katie are willing to endure in an attempt to see each other again restore a person’s faith in humanity and love. At the same time, the book forces the reader to question just what is love and why will we go to the ends of the Earth for it. What I did not like was that there were a few different times where I would lose track of who was talking or what was going on. I am not sure if this was in any way due to how the book was written or because I was not devoting the amount of attention to the book as it deserves. Even so philosophical books are expected to confuse readers at times and force them to re-evaluate passages, so it in no way changes my opinion of this book.
I would only recommend this book to adult readers. While there is nothing inappropriate for readers in high school, the philosophy would probably be a bit much for them. The casual reader should also be prepared for a long and at times difficult read. Nonetheless, I rate this book to be a perfect 4 out of 4. People who do not realize what kind of book this is would probably put it down during the first few chapters and give it a low rating for being hard to read. Those that realize what they are reading will find that the seemingly random ramblings do make sense if you slow down. There is a wonderful plotline and a beautiful love story (thankfully not a mushy one) that takes place throughout the book if readers are willing to take their time and look.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lucy in the Sky (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Natalie Portman and Jon Hamm together (1 more)
Interesting premise
Mind. Blown - A thoughtful film that's hard to like.
Natalie Portman plays the eponymous Lucy Cola, a NASA astronaut who has achieved her ambition of reaching space and experienced the enormity of the universe first hand. Her mind is officially blown. Such that, on returning to earth, nothing seems ‘enough’ any more. Her family; her comfortable home; her life.
She becomes desperate to be selected for the next program… to get that literal) ‘high’ all over again. So desperate that her mind and morals burn up on trying to re-enter.
You look at the career choices of Natalie Portman, and they have often revolved around cool and detached woman: “Black Swan” and “Jackie” for example. Here, looking incredibly fit and strong (as you would expect from an astronaut at the peak of her powers) , she again plays something of an ice queen. She is – of course – brilliant at it.
Starring with her here is the ever-watchable Jon Hamm as fellow astronaut Mark Goodwin, the omni-present – at the moment – Zazie Beetz as a fellow program competitor and Dan Stevens (from “Downton”) as her exasperated colleague and husband Drew. (Stevens was COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE to me in this movie…. just like in “Beauty and the Beast“! To the extent that I had to wind back the film from the end-titles after seeing his name to check!).
This was always a film that was going to struggle to identify its audience. Yes, it starts in space, but it is in NO WAY a “Sci-Fi” movie (which is one of its tags on IMDB. Shameful!). This is a drama about a woman progressively losing her grip on reality: almost a PTSD movie, but without the “S” being “T” in the normal sense of things.
Lucy’s ‘other-worldliness’ is reflected in the aspect ratio of the movie, which varies from a claustrophobic ‘old-TV’ format 4:3 ratio to a ratio bordering on ‘Cinemascope’. (This makes for a very challenging watch on a small airline TV screen, as I was doing!). It’s a motif that’s obviously meant to reflect Lucy’s drifting grip on reality. But it eventually gets irritating…. I had the sense that first-time feature director Noah Hawley was ‘trying too hard’ for something quirky and different.
Far more successful is a ‘green-screened’ trippy sequence seeing Lucy being transported to a hospital bedside to the rendition of The Beatles iconic song, performed by Lucy Hannigan (listen here). It’s dreamlike and unsettling. In fact, one of the high-spots of the movie for me was Jeff Russo‘s score, which I have made a mental note to make sure to listen to again on Spotify. It’s more electronica than orchestral but matches the mood of the film really well.
But, here’s the thing. I didn’t enjoy it. The problem is (and no spoilers here) that Portman’s Lucy is such a downright BITCH that it is impossible to warm to her as the movie’s star. There is, in fact, only one of the characters that you really side with, and she’s the one doing the most damage to them.
This shouldn’t be a problem to the story, since the film is reflecting (loosely) true events: the astronauts in question were Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein. And there are lots of ‘feel-bad’ films about mental illness (“One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for example) that stand on their own merits. But this one just seemed to be a fairly miserable and destructive story that didn’t have enough of a payoff – either positive or negative – to merit the journey.
This was disappointing, since after hearing the premise, I’d been looking forward to this one.
For those who love movies, and the way movies are structured, it is an interesting watch. But it is not by any stretch an entertaining mainstream movie. The director Noah Hawley will need to do better in the “commercially-appealing” stakes for his next film: since he’s been (rather surprisingly) given the helm for the sequel to “Star Trek: Beyond“.
(For the full graphical review, check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/09/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-lucy-in-the-sky-2019/ ).
She becomes desperate to be selected for the next program… to get that literal) ‘high’ all over again. So desperate that her mind and morals burn up on trying to re-enter.
You look at the career choices of Natalie Portman, and they have often revolved around cool and detached woman: “Black Swan” and “Jackie” for example. Here, looking incredibly fit and strong (as you would expect from an astronaut at the peak of her powers) , she again plays something of an ice queen. She is – of course – brilliant at it.
Starring with her here is the ever-watchable Jon Hamm as fellow astronaut Mark Goodwin, the omni-present – at the moment – Zazie Beetz as a fellow program competitor and Dan Stevens (from “Downton”) as her exasperated colleague and husband Drew. (Stevens was COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE to me in this movie…. just like in “Beauty and the Beast“! To the extent that I had to wind back the film from the end-titles after seeing his name to check!).
This was always a film that was going to struggle to identify its audience. Yes, it starts in space, but it is in NO WAY a “Sci-Fi” movie (which is one of its tags on IMDB. Shameful!). This is a drama about a woman progressively losing her grip on reality: almost a PTSD movie, but without the “S” being “T” in the normal sense of things.
Lucy’s ‘other-worldliness’ is reflected in the aspect ratio of the movie, which varies from a claustrophobic ‘old-TV’ format 4:3 ratio to a ratio bordering on ‘Cinemascope’. (This makes for a very challenging watch on a small airline TV screen, as I was doing!). It’s a motif that’s obviously meant to reflect Lucy’s drifting grip on reality. But it eventually gets irritating…. I had the sense that first-time feature director Noah Hawley was ‘trying too hard’ for something quirky and different.
Far more successful is a ‘green-screened’ trippy sequence seeing Lucy being transported to a hospital bedside to the rendition of The Beatles iconic song, performed by Lucy Hannigan (listen here). It’s dreamlike and unsettling. In fact, one of the high-spots of the movie for me was Jeff Russo‘s score, which I have made a mental note to make sure to listen to again on Spotify. It’s more electronica than orchestral but matches the mood of the film really well.
But, here’s the thing. I didn’t enjoy it. The problem is (and no spoilers here) that Portman’s Lucy is such a downright BITCH that it is impossible to warm to her as the movie’s star. There is, in fact, only one of the characters that you really side with, and she’s the one doing the most damage to them.
This shouldn’t be a problem to the story, since the film is reflecting (loosely) true events: the astronauts in question were Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein. And there are lots of ‘feel-bad’ films about mental illness (“One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for example) that stand on their own merits. But this one just seemed to be a fairly miserable and destructive story that didn’t have enough of a payoff – either positive or negative – to merit the journey.
This was disappointing, since after hearing the premise, I’d been looking forward to this one.
For those who love movies, and the way movies are structured, it is an interesting watch. But it is not by any stretch an entertaining mainstream movie. The director Noah Hawley will need to do better in the “commercially-appealing” stakes for his next film: since he’s been (rather surprisingly) given the helm for the sequel to “Star Trek: Beyond“.
(For the full graphical review, check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/09/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-lucy-in-the-sky-2019/ ).
Style Girl! Dress Up Game for Girls and Teens - Fantasy Fashion Salon & Beauty Makeover Studio
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
*** Hey dolls, welcome to the fantasy game world of fashion styles that will knock you off your...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Siren's Call (Dark Tides #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Between desire and love there are some things that can’t stay buried, even in the deep of the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like “Tomb Raider” is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!