Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2017
A fun, entertaining movie
Anytime I mention to my family that I'm going to see a Tom Cruise movie, they roll their eyes and take the piss. The words 'man crush' are used, and I just take it on the chin (sometimes). The truth is though, many of my favourite movies are Tom Cruise movies. I'm not a fan of his earlier stuff (my wife is the complete opposite), but I pretty much love anything after his Vanilla Sky/Magnolia days. And he's clearly a hell of a nice guy outside of the movies too, despite what anything thinks about his religious beliefs. But then he went and made The Mummy earlier this year - a serious dip in Cruise quality. Can American Made be the movie to get him back on track?
It certainly is an idea role for Cruise. Based on a true story, Cruise plays Barry Seal. Top pilot for TWA and bored of the same old routine day in, day out. When his co-pilot and passengers are all asleep during a flight, he relieves the monotony by faking some heavy turbulence in order to wake them all up, but it's not enough. So, when he's approached by CIA agent Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson) to work for them, flying exciting reconnaissance missions over South America, he jumps at the chance. And then during a refueling stop in Colombia, Seal is recruited by Pablo Escobar's drug cartel, who offer to pay him $2000 for each kilo of cocaine he can carry from Columbia to Louisiana. Then he begins flying guns from Arkansas to Nicaragua while still continuing the drugs runs. Seal finds himself with more money than he can spend, burying bags of it in his backyard and piling it up in wardrobes. He can't turn around without bumping into money, and all the while the stakes are getting higher, the potential consequences of his actions increasing.
Caught up in among all of this are Seals wife and kids. Finding themselves woken by him at 4am and being told they need to move home before their house is raided at 6am, before gradually adjusting to their new, increasingly expensive lifestyle. We never quite get to spend enough time with that part of Barry's life, taking a backseat instead to the roller coaster thrill seeking that he's got himself wrapped up in outside of home.
Cruise charms and grins his way through all of this perfectly. Obviously he did all of the flying scenes himself and he must have had a real blast making this movie. There's a good deal of humour throughout and the use of film grain, handheld cameras and Kodak style lighting help to give it a real 70s-80s feel to match the era it's set in. A fun, entertaining movie and a return to form for Mr Cruise!
It certainly is an idea role for Cruise. Based on a true story, Cruise plays Barry Seal. Top pilot for TWA and bored of the same old routine day in, day out. When his co-pilot and passengers are all asleep during a flight, he relieves the monotony by faking some heavy turbulence in order to wake them all up, but it's not enough. So, when he's approached by CIA agent Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson) to work for them, flying exciting reconnaissance missions over South America, he jumps at the chance. And then during a refueling stop in Colombia, Seal is recruited by Pablo Escobar's drug cartel, who offer to pay him $2000 for each kilo of cocaine he can carry from Columbia to Louisiana. Then he begins flying guns from Arkansas to Nicaragua while still continuing the drugs runs. Seal finds himself with more money than he can spend, burying bags of it in his backyard and piling it up in wardrobes. He can't turn around without bumping into money, and all the while the stakes are getting higher, the potential consequences of his actions increasing.
Caught up in among all of this are Seals wife and kids. Finding themselves woken by him at 4am and being told they need to move home before their house is raided at 6am, before gradually adjusting to their new, increasingly expensive lifestyle. We never quite get to spend enough time with that part of Barry's life, taking a backseat instead to the roller coaster thrill seeking that he's got himself wrapped up in outside of home.
Cruise charms and grins his way through all of this perfectly. Obviously he did all of the flying scenes himself and he must have had a real blast making this movie. There's a good deal of humour throughout and the use of film grain, handheld cameras and Kodak style lighting help to give it a real 70s-80s feel to match the era it's set in. A fun, entertaining movie and a return to form for Mr Cruise!
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Wall Street (1987) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
When looking to review a film like this, there are two distinct points of view to take in to a account:
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
Too weird for me
The girls of the sorority house are a close-knit--if not particularly happy--group. That is until Margot's death. When she's found dead in the house, it changes things, and each girl must deal with Margot's passing and its aftermath in her own way.
Well, this was a weird one. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't this. We are introduced to the sorority girls in the first chapter by a "chorus," who tells us who lives in each room and a small bit about each one. Except for Margot's room, we're told; Margot is dead.
Then the following chapters detail a snippet of time in each girls' life. Some chapters may take place before Margot's death; others take place after. I was really glad I was reading a hardcopy, because at the start of each chapter, I had to flip back to that first chapter about all of the girls and find that girl's little paragraph or so blurb that introduced them. I could never keep any of them straight--perhaps because there was so many or maybe because most them didn't really stand out to me.
Because yes: I didn't really love this one. The short bits of time spent with each character make it hard to get attached to anyone. While we are technically following the thread of Margot's death, there's really no arc to the story. The book probably speaks to some higher meaning that I just didn't get. Instead it's a bit disturbing (some of the chapters are really awful), and no one is happy at all, which was really depressing. Sure, some of these dark glimpses into people's lives can be a little oddly fascinating, but honestly, it was often horrifying too. For me, it felt like the book was trying to be literary and clever and it just didn't work for me (or, more likely, I'm just not a good candidate for literary, smart books, ha).
For instance, was this one praising or mocking sororities? I really don't know. Margot's death seemed so pointless, so it certainly didn't seem to be doing the idea of sororities any favors. A lot of the book didn't seem to show the sisterhood in a good light. Yeah, I just didn't get it. I'm not sure exactly why I slogged through it, except that the full details of Margot's death aren't completely revealed until the end. I actually liked Margot the best, but she was dead, and yes, that probably sums up this book the best for me.
Overall, this one was too weird for me. I can do dark, but dark, strange, no real plot, and few characters with any redeemable value--it just didn't work for me. I'm sure it is enjoyable for others, especially those that don't need a real plot arc. And I do feel the need to point out that there's a trigger for self-harm, suicide, and eating disorders in this novel.
Well, this was a weird one. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't this. We are introduced to the sorority girls in the first chapter by a "chorus," who tells us who lives in each room and a small bit about each one. Except for Margot's room, we're told; Margot is dead.
Then the following chapters detail a snippet of time in each girls' life. Some chapters may take place before Margot's death; others take place after. I was really glad I was reading a hardcopy, because at the start of each chapter, I had to flip back to that first chapter about all of the girls and find that girl's little paragraph or so blurb that introduced them. I could never keep any of them straight--perhaps because there was so many or maybe because most them didn't really stand out to me.
Because yes: I didn't really love this one. The short bits of time spent with each character make it hard to get attached to anyone. While we are technically following the thread of Margot's death, there's really no arc to the story. The book probably speaks to some higher meaning that I just didn't get. Instead it's a bit disturbing (some of the chapters are really awful), and no one is happy at all, which was really depressing. Sure, some of these dark glimpses into people's lives can be a little oddly fascinating, but honestly, it was often horrifying too. For me, it felt like the book was trying to be literary and clever and it just didn't work for me (or, more likely, I'm just not a good candidate for literary, smart books, ha).
For instance, was this one praising or mocking sororities? I really don't know. Margot's death seemed so pointless, so it certainly didn't seem to be doing the idea of sororities any favors. A lot of the book didn't seem to show the sisterhood in a good light. Yeah, I just didn't get it. I'm not sure exactly why I slogged through it, except that the full details of Margot's death aren't completely revealed until the end. I actually liked Margot the best, but she was dead, and yes, that probably sums up this book the best for me.
Overall, this one was too weird for me. I can do dark, but dark, strange, no real plot, and few characters with any redeemable value--it just didn't work for me. I'm sure it is enjoyable for others, especially those that don't need a real plot arc. And I do feel the need to point out that there's a trigger for self-harm, suicide, and eating disorders in this novel.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Favorite Sister in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Goal Diggers is a reality TV show based on women entrepreneurs. These women have made their own way in life without the help of a man. The story centers around two characters on the show, Brett and Stephanie. Brett is the lesbian who doesn't care about what others things about her, with the bike riding studio who donates proceeds from her studios to women in Morocco who have to walk miles for water. They use the money to purchase bikes for these women. Stephanie is just the opposite refusing to film without a full face of makeup and she has written a few novels and now is on tour for her first "memoir". The other 2 characters on the show are Jen and Lauren, who don't really get along with the rest of the cast, and joining them this season is Kelly, Brett's older sister. Is reality TV really real? Are what is going on in these women's lives really happening or is it played up for the audience. This book takes us from Pre-Production on the show to Post-Production for one of the most explosive seasons. Are you ready for the ride?
Thank you to NetGalley and Simon & Schuster for the opportunity to read and review this book.
Getting into this book was hard. It took me 10 days to read it and I thought I would get through it pretty quickly. I love the Real Housewives series with my favorites being Atlanta, and Beverly Hills and this book I thought was going to be like taking a behind the scenes look at a show like that. It was, but for me it fell a little short.
The book starts with Kelly talking about Brett's death. But we have to go through the whole season of filming to see how that all plays out. Each woman has a secret to keep with one being bigger and juicier than the next. So from the start I was intrigued and I had to find out how Brett died, but it just took so long to get there. Back stories and front stories, and Interviews and lies. It's all a complete mess. The best part of the book for me was the last 10%.
Do you watch Reality TV? My husband calls it mind polluting. But he watches a couple of them with me. I've always wanted to know if the show was scripted and if these women were all either enemies or best friends when the cameras go off. You get a glimpse of that in this book. They take us through an entire filming season before the audience gets to see what happens. Producers sending texts to cast members before they are going to meet up with certain people to remind them of last filmed conversations? I need to ask Andy Cohen if that really happens. But with so much drama going on, whose lies do you believe?
Thank you to NetGalley and Simon & Schuster for the opportunity to read and review this book.
Getting into this book was hard. It took me 10 days to read it and I thought I would get through it pretty quickly. I love the Real Housewives series with my favorites being Atlanta, and Beverly Hills and this book I thought was going to be like taking a behind the scenes look at a show like that. It was, but for me it fell a little short.
The book starts with Kelly talking about Brett's death. But we have to go through the whole season of filming to see how that all plays out. Each woman has a secret to keep with one being bigger and juicier than the next. So from the start I was intrigued and I had to find out how Brett died, but it just took so long to get there. Back stories and front stories, and Interviews and lies. It's all a complete mess. The best part of the book for me was the last 10%.
Do you watch Reality TV? My husband calls it mind polluting. But he watches a couple of them with me. I've always wanted to know if the show was scripted and if these women were all either enemies or best friends when the cameras go off. You get a glimpse of that in this book. They take us through an entire filming season before the audience gets to see what happens. Producers sending texts to cast members before they are going to meet up with certain people to remind them of last filmed conversations? I need to ask Andy Cohen if that really happens. But with so much drama going on, whose lies do you believe?
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Somewhat misleading but thrilling nonetheless
It’s best to start off this review as honest as possible. If you’re expecting a fully-fledged sequel or even a prequel to Matt Reeves’ brilliant monster horror, Cloverfield in 10 Cloverfield Lane, you’ll be very disappointed.
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 23, 2018
Come for Denzel, stay for...well...there isn't much else to stay for
Denzel Washington is one of the finest actors of his generation. A charismatic screen presence, he commands the viewer's attention whether he is performing a comedy, drama or action film. He has won 2 Oscars as a performer and has been nominated for his acting 6 other times - including (rightfully so) for his performance as the titular character in ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ.
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Cutting Room Floor in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I read the synopsis of this book, I was definitely intrigued. When the opportunity arrived to review this book, I decided I'd take a chance on it. While I wasn't overly impressed with the book, it was still an alright read.
The title suits the book well. The chapters titles are written like a script and sometimes include blocking directions. (If you're not familiar with drama terms, you may want to look that up). The main characters are drama geeks as well.
I do like the cover! It's definitely eye catching, and it made me want to pick this book up.
I didn't really have a problem with the world building. I felt like the world building was done rather well except I didn't like how Riley seemed to find every girl she came across as hot. That just doesn't happen in real life, yet it happened to Riley in this book.
I felt like the pacing was a bit slow in this book. At times I was debating with whether or not I should carry on. However, there are some parts of this book where the pacing does pick up, especially towards the end., so not all hope is lost.
I found the plot line to be interesting enough. I was a drama geek in school, so the plot suited me. There was the whole muder mystery thing with Riley's favorite teacher, Riley's confusion about her sexuality, and Dez's stalker crush on Riley going on. I definitely wanted to know how things would play out.
I thought the characters were written fairly well. As I've said before, I didn't like how the author made it seem like Riley was hot for every girl she came across. Saying that, I did like Riley though. Everything about her (minus liking every girl) felt real, and her confusion was very realistic. I didn't like Dez. I felt he was way too controlling when it came for Riley and that he was super selfish. In fact, I'd even go as far as calling him scary. He was always there for Riley but only because he was a stalker. There's not one thing I liked about Dez.
The dialogue flowed smoothly, and all interactions between characters felt realistic. There is some swearing in this book, but it's not over the top.
Overall, The Cutting Room Floor is a decent read. The pacing could do with some work as it does come across as a bit dull some of the time. However, the plot itself is interesting.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who want a book to read to help them pass the time.
<b>I'd give The Cutting Room Floor by Dawn Klehr a 3.5 out of 5.</b>
(I was provided with a free paperback of this title from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
When I read the synopsis of this book, I was definitely intrigued. When the opportunity arrived to review this book, I decided I'd take a chance on it. While I wasn't overly impressed with the book, it was still an alright read.
The title suits the book well. The chapters titles are written like a script and sometimes include blocking directions. (If you're not familiar with drama terms, you may want to look that up). The main characters are drama geeks as well.
I do like the cover! It's definitely eye catching, and it made me want to pick this book up.
I didn't really have a problem with the world building. I felt like the world building was done rather well except I didn't like how Riley seemed to find every girl she came across as hot. That just doesn't happen in real life, yet it happened to Riley in this book.
I felt like the pacing was a bit slow in this book. At times I was debating with whether or not I should carry on. However, there are some parts of this book where the pacing does pick up, especially towards the end., so not all hope is lost.
I found the plot line to be interesting enough. I was a drama geek in school, so the plot suited me. There was the whole muder mystery thing with Riley's favorite teacher, Riley's confusion about her sexuality, and Dez's stalker crush on Riley going on. I definitely wanted to know how things would play out.
I thought the characters were written fairly well. As I've said before, I didn't like how the author made it seem like Riley was hot for every girl she came across. Saying that, I did like Riley though. Everything about her (minus liking every girl) felt real, and her confusion was very realistic. I didn't like Dez. I felt he was way too controlling when it came for Riley and that he was super selfish. In fact, I'd even go as far as calling him scary. He was always there for Riley but only because he was a stalker. There's not one thing I liked about Dez.
The dialogue flowed smoothly, and all interactions between characters felt realistic. There is some swearing in this book, but it's not over the top.
Overall, The Cutting Room Floor is a decent read. The pacing could do with some work as it does come across as a bit dull some of the time. However, the plot itself is interesting.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who want a book to read to help them pass the time.
<b>I'd give The Cutting Room Floor by Dawn Klehr a 3.5 out of 5.</b>
(I was provided with a free paperback of this title from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated One of us is Lying in Books
Sep 6, 2018
The Pacings (2 more)
The Plot
The Characters
A Great Read!
I forgot how I came across One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus, but I'm really glad I did. This story pulled me in right from the start and never let go!
The pacing for One of Us Is Lying is fantastic. I was fully immersed in the story as soon as I read the first sentence. Never did the pacing falter. It was quick and enjoyable. This was one of those books where I wished real life could have left me alone so I could have finished it in one sitting.
I found the plot for One of Us Is Lying to be very interesting. I enjoyed how it kind of felt like The Breakfast Club movie, but it was much much more interesting. It was good to see a group of kids from different backgrounds coming together instead of blaming each other for once. Usually in young adult novels, there's so much bickering. That wasn't the case in One of Us Is Lying. There are a few plot twists. I did figure out who the murderer was very early in the book. I felt like it was kind of obvious. However, there was one major plot twist I didn't predict. I feel like this book does tie up all loose ends.
The world building was done very well. I thought the author, Karen M. McManus, did a great job in writing about a high school setting as well as a criminal setting. Everything felt very real. I felt like I was one of the teens being accused of murder. Everything felt personal to me which is definitely a good thing. I've never been interrogated by the police, but McManus made me feel like I was in the interrogation room each time was of the teens was questioned. I can't fault the world building one bit. It is solid.
I loved the characters in One of Us is Lying. I also loved how diverse a lot of the characters were. I think my favorite character, overall, was Cooper. Maybe it's because we're both southern, but I just loved him. He seemed so caring and sweet. I also enjoyed the other characters of Nate, Bronwyn, and Addy as well. It was nice to see the homecoming princess as not just a one dimensional person. All of the characters were thoroughly fleshed out. Character development was spot on.
Trigger warnings include death, drugs, some violence, and swearing.
All in all, One of Us Is Lying was such a fantastic read. I enjoyed it more than I thought I was going to. It's got a great cast of characters, an interesting plot, and the world building is fantastic. I would definitely recommend One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus to everyone aged 14+.
The pacing for One of Us Is Lying is fantastic. I was fully immersed in the story as soon as I read the first sentence. Never did the pacing falter. It was quick and enjoyable. This was one of those books where I wished real life could have left me alone so I could have finished it in one sitting.
I found the plot for One of Us Is Lying to be very interesting. I enjoyed how it kind of felt like The Breakfast Club movie, but it was much much more interesting. It was good to see a group of kids from different backgrounds coming together instead of blaming each other for once. Usually in young adult novels, there's so much bickering. That wasn't the case in One of Us Is Lying. There are a few plot twists. I did figure out who the murderer was very early in the book. I felt like it was kind of obvious. However, there was one major plot twist I didn't predict. I feel like this book does tie up all loose ends.
The world building was done very well. I thought the author, Karen M. McManus, did a great job in writing about a high school setting as well as a criminal setting. Everything felt very real. I felt like I was one of the teens being accused of murder. Everything felt personal to me which is definitely a good thing. I've never been interrogated by the police, but McManus made me feel like I was in the interrogation room each time was of the teens was questioned. I can't fault the world building one bit. It is solid.
I loved the characters in One of Us is Lying. I also loved how diverse a lot of the characters were. I think my favorite character, overall, was Cooper. Maybe it's because we're both southern, but I just loved him. He seemed so caring and sweet. I also enjoyed the other characters of Nate, Bronwyn, and Addy as well. It was nice to see the homecoming princess as not just a one dimensional person. All of the characters were thoroughly fleshed out. Character development was spot on.
Trigger warnings include death, drugs, some violence, and swearing.
All in all, One of Us Is Lying was such a fantastic read. I enjoyed it more than I thought I was going to. It's got a great cast of characters, an interesting plot, and the world building is fantastic. I would definitely recommend One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus to everyone aged 14+.
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire in Books
Oct 22, 2018
Why do I have a feeling that the guy who wrote this just went on a rant and decided to put that whole rant into one giant ass book?
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
JT (287 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Zombies, they’ve been around for a while now in all shapes and sizes, yet like the walking undead the genre shows no signs of dying out. Director Marc Forster teams up with Brad Pitt for a zombie horror (if you can really call it that) which travels the world in search of a vaccine that will stop the world’s population being wiped out.
It doesn’t take long for the first action set piece to explode into life, as Pitt and his family face a race against time to get out of New York city and off the streets as the zombie pandemic takes a grip. It’s certainly enough to hold your attention as we watch the transformation. People scampering this way and that as hordes of zombies swarm the streets like rats coming up from the sewer.
Gerry secures safety on board one of the few remaining battleships and is told that he must join the fight to find a cure, or head back to hell with his family in tow. He then jets off on a whistle stop tour taking him to South Korea, Israeli and of all places Wales (that got a chuckle from the audience) where each destination kicks off another exciting and thoroughly enjoyable zombie set piece.
However one thing is missing from this film, something vital that sets it apart from others, gore. Given the PG-13 rating certain scenes cut away from anything resembling graphic violence, which was a massive shame. The lack of flesh eating action which fans are used to seeing is a real disappointment. It is an element that could have taken this film from good to great and I felt like I had been cheated out of my ticket price.
Forster’s CG zombie hordes are impressive, particularly rampaging through the Israeli back streets and the film certainly delivers on some slick tension with one or two jump out of your seat moments. But for me it’s not enough to carry the entire film through, and when things quieten down you’re not left with much else to fill the time before the next shit hitting fan moment.
The occasional plot hole threatens to rear its ugly head, and given the size of the budget the ending is a real let down, but it clearly hints at a potential sequel. If they choose to go down that route then blood must be spilled and lots of it. The acting in World War Z is hardly filled with standouts, and with the exception of Pitt, most only pop up from time to time. Like Matthew Fox’s paratrooper which pretty much feels like a cameo and James Badge Dale’s Captain Speke, around for minutes before taking one to the head.
Visually it’s great there is no question about that, the zombies are terrifying but it needed just a little bit more to push it into the front as one of the better zombie flicks.
It doesn’t take long for the first action set piece to explode into life, as Pitt and his family face a race against time to get out of New York city and off the streets as the zombie pandemic takes a grip. It’s certainly enough to hold your attention as we watch the transformation. People scampering this way and that as hordes of zombies swarm the streets like rats coming up from the sewer.
Gerry secures safety on board one of the few remaining battleships and is told that he must join the fight to find a cure, or head back to hell with his family in tow. He then jets off on a whistle stop tour taking him to South Korea, Israeli and of all places Wales (that got a chuckle from the audience) where each destination kicks off another exciting and thoroughly enjoyable zombie set piece.
However one thing is missing from this film, something vital that sets it apart from others, gore. Given the PG-13 rating certain scenes cut away from anything resembling graphic violence, which was a massive shame. The lack of flesh eating action which fans are used to seeing is a real disappointment. It is an element that could have taken this film from good to great and I felt like I had been cheated out of my ticket price.
Forster’s CG zombie hordes are impressive, particularly rampaging through the Israeli back streets and the film certainly delivers on some slick tension with one or two jump out of your seat moments. But for me it’s not enough to carry the entire film through, and when things quieten down you’re not left with much else to fill the time before the next shit hitting fan moment.
The occasional plot hole threatens to rear its ugly head, and given the size of the budget the ending is a real let down, but it clearly hints at a potential sequel. If they choose to go down that route then blood must be spilled and lots of it. The acting in World War Z is hardly filled with standouts, and with the exception of Pitt, most only pop up from time to time. Like Matthew Fox’s paratrooper which pretty much feels like a cameo and James Badge Dale’s Captain Speke, around for minutes before taking one to the head.
Visually it’s great there is no question about that, the zombies are terrifying but it needed just a little bit more to push it into the front as one of the better zombie flicks.