Search
Search results
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Nov 7, 2019
The Hunger Games is a trilogy of YA dystopian novels written by American author Suzanne Collins. The story is set in an unspecified future, in a dystopian, post-apocalyptic nation of Panem located in North America. The country consists of the Wealthy Capital surrounded by the twelve (Originally thirteen) poorer districts, each one in various states of poverty. The story follows Katniss Everdeen as she takes her sisters place in the annual Hunger Games. The games are a televised event created as punishment for a past rebellion. Over the course of the books Katniss and the rest of Panem are plunged into Civil War thanks to Katniss inadvertently fuelling a hidden rebel fraction led by President Alma Coin of (the previously thought to be destroyed) District 13. After going through hell, loosing friends and the sister she tried to protect Katniss is eventually tried for killing Coin at the execution of Ex-President Snow and sent back to District 12. Katniss eventually marries fellow tribute Peeta Mellark (whom she was tied to during the games as the pair of star-crossed lovers) and eventually have two children a boy and a girl. Author Suzanne Collins stated that the inspiration for the story came to her after channel surfing through TV channels, having seen a reality show on one channel then saw footage of the Iraq invasion. The two began to blur in an unsettling way and the idea started to form. The Greek myth of Theseus also served as a basis for the story, with Collins saying that Katniss could be called a future Theseus and The Hunger Games being an interpretation of the old gladiatorial games.
The Hunger Games the titular book was released on September 14th 2008 under the publishing house Scholastic Press. The book had an initial print run of 50,00 copies eventually being bumped up twice to 200,000 copies. By February 2010 the book had sold 800,000 copies and rights to the novel have been sold in 38 territories. In November 2008 The Hunger Games was placed on the New York Times best seller list where it would remain for 100 weeks (just over three months). By the time the books film adaption released in march 2012 the book had been on USA Today's best seller list for 135 weeks (Four months) and sold over 17.5 million copies. The book received several awards and honours such as Publishers Weekley's “Best book of the year 2008”, the New York Times “Notable children's book 2008” and was the 2009 young adult fiction category winner of the Golden Duck award. The book also received the California Young Reader medal in 2011.
Catching Fire, the second book was published on September 1st 2009 under Scholastic. As the sequel to the Hunger Games book it continues the story of Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem as rebellion begins. The book received mixed reviews but was placed on Time Magazines Top 100 fiction list of 2009. Catching fire had an initial print of 350,00 copies but was (Like its predecessor) had grown to 750,00 by February 2010. The book has sold over 10 million copies.
Mocking-jay the third and final book in the Hunger Games Trilogy and was published August 24th 2010 by Scholastic. The book had a 1.2 million copy print that was bumped up from 750,000 copies and in its first week sold over 450,00 copies. Reviews were favourable with the book and notes that it thoroughly explores the themes of the other books.
I really love the books and regularly read them. Whenever I do read them I tend to read all three of them in the space of a week. To be fair whilst I had heard of them before the first movie release I didn't start reading them until I'd seen the first movie. I did read Catching Fire and Mockingjay before their movie equivalents hit the screens. Whilst The Hunger Games was a brilliant opener and Mockingjay was a brilliant ender, I agree with a few reviewers that Catching fire had a delayed start and it took a bit of time to get into the action of the story at large.
Suzanne Collins was born in Hartford Connecticut on the 10th of August 1962 as the youngest fourth child to Jane Bradley Collins and Lt. Col. Michael Jon Collins a decorated U. S. Air Force officer. As a daughter of a military man she was constantly moving with her family and spent her childhood in the eastern united states. Collins went to the Alabama school of fine arts in Birmingham 1980 as a theatre arts Major. Collins went on to complete a Bachelor of arts from Indiana University in 1985 and telecommunications and in 1989 Collins earned her M. F. A. in dramatic writing from NYU Tisch school of arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children's television shows and won a nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed Christmas special Santa, Baby!. Collins after meeting James Proimos whilst working on a children's show felt the urge to write children's books and spent the early 2000's writing five books of the Underland Chronicles; Gregor the Overlander, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, Gregor and the curse of the Warmbloods, Gregor and the Marks of Secret and Gregor and the Code of Claw. The influence for those books came from Alice in Wonderland. During the late 2000's she ends up writing the Hunger Games trilogy which went onto a famous movie trilogy. As the result of the hunger games trilogy popularity Collins was named one of Times Magazine's most Influential people of 2010. On June 17th 2019 Collins announced she was writing a prequel to the Hunger Games and is scheduled to be released on 19th May 2020, the book is to focus on the failed rebellion 64 years before the Hunger Games trilogy.
I highly respect the Author Suzanne Collins for both her work as a writer of Children's media and for her creativity in creating both the Hunger Games and the Underland Chronicles. Her creativity has been awarded with her books popularity and being announced amongst Time Magazine's 2010's most influential people and Amazons best selling Kindle author in 2012.
In March 2009 Lions Gate Entertainment entered into a co-production agreement with Nina Jacobson's Production company Color Force for the Hunger Games. Novel writer Suzanne Collins adapted the book in collaboration with screenwriter Billy Ray and Director Gary Ross. Actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson and Liam Hemsworth were hired for the roles of Katniss, Peeta and Gale respectively. Lawrence was four years older than Katniss was in the books but Collins said she would rather the actress be older than the character since it demanded a certain maturity and power. Collins also liked Lawrence stating she was the “only one who truly captured the character I wrote in the book”. The Hunger Games Movie was released on march 23rd 2012. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released on November 22nd 2013 with Francis Lawrence being hired as Director and actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone and Sam Claflin being hired as Plutarch Heavensbee, Johanna Mason and Finneck Odair respectively. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was split into 2 and Part 1 was released on November 21st 2014 and part 2 on November 20th 2015 Francis Lawrence remained Director for the final movies with Actor Julianne Moore joining the cast as President Alma Coin.
I loved the movies point blank and whilst it has its flaws like most movies often do I think its redeeming quality has been it faithfulness in sticking to the books as closely as possible and the actors representation of Suzanne Collins characters such as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Donald Sunderland and President Snow, Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as Haymich Abernathy and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett. Whilst all the actors were very good and were chosen well for their characters. These actors in particular I feel did exceptionally well in bringing their characters to life especially Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson but then I am a very big fan of theirs so I may be a little biased.
The Hunger Games the titular book was released on September 14th 2008 under the publishing house Scholastic Press. The book had an initial print run of 50,00 copies eventually being bumped up twice to 200,000 copies. By February 2010 the book had sold 800,000 copies and rights to the novel have been sold in 38 territories. In November 2008 The Hunger Games was placed on the New York Times best seller list where it would remain for 100 weeks (just over three months). By the time the books film adaption released in march 2012 the book had been on USA Today's best seller list for 135 weeks (Four months) and sold over 17.5 million copies. The book received several awards and honours such as Publishers Weekley's “Best book of the year 2008”, the New York Times “Notable children's book 2008” and was the 2009 young adult fiction category winner of the Golden Duck award. The book also received the California Young Reader medal in 2011.
Catching Fire, the second book was published on September 1st 2009 under Scholastic. As the sequel to the Hunger Games book it continues the story of Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem as rebellion begins. The book received mixed reviews but was placed on Time Magazines Top 100 fiction list of 2009. Catching fire had an initial print of 350,00 copies but was (Like its predecessor) had grown to 750,00 by February 2010. The book has sold over 10 million copies.
Mocking-jay the third and final book in the Hunger Games Trilogy and was published August 24th 2010 by Scholastic. The book had a 1.2 million copy print that was bumped up from 750,000 copies and in its first week sold over 450,00 copies. Reviews were favourable with the book and notes that it thoroughly explores the themes of the other books.
I really love the books and regularly read them. Whenever I do read them I tend to read all three of them in the space of a week. To be fair whilst I had heard of them before the first movie release I didn't start reading them until I'd seen the first movie. I did read Catching Fire and Mockingjay before their movie equivalents hit the screens. Whilst The Hunger Games was a brilliant opener and Mockingjay was a brilliant ender, I agree with a few reviewers that Catching fire had a delayed start and it took a bit of time to get into the action of the story at large.
Suzanne Collins was born in Hartford Connecticut on the 10th of August 1962 as the youngest fourth child to Jane Bradley Collins and Lt. Col. Michael Jon Collins a decorated U. S. Air Force officer. As a daughter of a military man she was constantly moving with her family and spent her childhood in the eastern united states. Collins went to the Alabama school of fine arts in Birmingham 1980 as a theatre arts Major. Collins went on to complete a Bachelor of arts from Indiana University in 1985 and telecommunications and in 1989 Collins earned her M. F. A. in dramatic writing from NYU Tisch school of arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children's television shows and won a nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed Christmas special Santa, Baby!. Collins after meeting James Proimos whilst working on a children's show felt the urge to write children's books and spent the early 2000's writing five books of the Underland Chronicles; Gregor the Overlander, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, Gregor and the curse of the Warmbloods, Gregor and the Marks of Secret and Gregor and the Code of Claw. The influence for those books came from Alice in Wonderland. During the late 2000's she ends up writing the Hunger Games trilogy which went onto a famous movie trilogy. As the result of the hunger games trilogy popularity Collins was named one of Times Magazine's most Influential people of 2010. On June 17th 2019 Collins announced she was writing a prequel to the Hunger Games and is scheduled to be released on 19th May 2020, the book is to focus on the failed rebellion 64 years before the Hunger Games trilogy.
I highly respect the Author Suzanne Collins for both her work as a writer of Children's media and for her creativity in creating both the Hunger Games and the Underland Chronicles. Her creativity has been awarded with her books popularity and being announced amongst Time Magazine's 2010's most influential people and Amazons best selling Kindle author in 2012.
In March 2009 Lions Gate Entertainment entered into a co-production agreement with Nina Jacobson's Production company Color Force for the Hunger Games. Novel writer Suzanne Collins adapted the book in collaboration with screenwriter Billy Ray and Director Gary Ross. Actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson and Liam Hemsworth were hired for the roles of Katniss, Peeta and Gale respectively. Lawrence was four years older than Katniss was in the books but Collins said she would rather the actress be older than the character since it demanded a certain maturity and power. Collins also liked Lawrence stating she was the “only one who truly captured the character I wrote in the book”. The Hunger Games Movie was released on march 23rd 2012. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released on November 22nd 2013 with Francis Lawrence being hired as Director and actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone and Sam Claflin being hired as Plutarch Heavensbee, Johanna Mason and Finneck Odair respectively. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was split into 2 and Part 1 was released on November 21st 2014 and part 2 on November 20th 2015 Francis Lawrence remained Director for the final movies with Actor Julianne Moore joining the cast as President Alma Coin.
I loved the movies point blank and whilst it has its flaws like most movies often do I think its redeeming quality has been it faithfulness in sticking to the books as closely as possible and the actors representation of Suzanne Collins characters such as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Donald Sunderland and President Snow, Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as Haymich Abernathy and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett. Whilst all the actors were very good and were chosen well for their characters. These actors in particular I feel did exceptionally well in bringing their characters to life especially Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson but then I am a very big fan of theirs so I may be a little biased.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Harsh Shadows in Tabletop Games
Apr 20, 2021
I am definitely a social gamer, but if there is one positive thing to come from the year 2020, it was rediscovering my love of playing solo games. So when Wonderspell reached out about previewing their newest casual solo card game, I was hooked! Taking on the role of a secret agent trying to track down an enemy spy? Yes please! Keep reading to find out more.
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The pictured components might not be finalized, and could differ after a successful Kickstarter campaign. -L
Harsh Shadows is a solo card game of hand management, grid movement, and deduction where you are an agent working to collect evidence necessary to apprehend an enemy spy. To setup for a game, randomly place the 9 Location cards in a 3×3 grid. Prepare the Discovery deck as described in the rules, place 1 face-down Discovery card to the right of each Location, and place the rest of the deck off to the side of the grid. Shuffle the Confiscated Item cards and deal the appropriate number to each of the Case File cards – 3 to Evidence, 1 to Red Herring, and 4 to False Leads. The Spy card is placed on the upper-left-most Location, and your Agent card on the lower-right-most Location. Shuffle the Spy Movement cards, and the game is ready to begin! It should look similar to the picture below.
The game is played over a series of rounds in which you will be moving your Agent, performing additional actions, and then moving the Spy. The goal is to track down the Spy, with the correct evidence in hand, before the Spy is able to flee the scene. The first thing that you will do each round is to move your Agent. You may only move to a Location that is adjacent or diagonal to your current Location. Once you move to a new Location, you will draw the top Discovery card from that Location. Discovery cards will either be Items, Clues, or Bombs. Items are collected as potential Evidence, Clues are used to reveal Confiscated Items from Case Files, and Bombs force you to discard a card from your tableau. After you have moved and collected a new Discovery card, you may perform any/all of these additional actions: Use Clue Cards, Place the Tracking Bug, Track the Spy, or Use your current Location’s ability. To Use Clue cards, you will discard a number of clues in order to reveal a Confiscated Item card from a Case File. The Confiscated Items under the Evidence Case File show the 3 items you are required to have in hand to apprehend the Spy by the end of the game. The item under the Red Herring, if you have it in hand at game’s end, will cause you to automatically lose. The 4 items under the False Leads will neither help you win, nor cause you to lose – they simply offer fodder for you to discard when necessary.
Another element required to win the game is to place the Tracking Bug on the Spy. On your turn, you may place the Tracking Bug at your current Location card – if the Spy moves to the Location on a future turn, they are considered to be ‘bugged’ and the Tracking Bug is live! Twice per game, you are allowed to Track the Spy. To do so, you will look at the top card of the Spy Movement deck, and return it to the top. This just lets you see to which Location the Spy is about to move. And finally, you can use your Location’s ability. Once you have taken as many of the additional actions as you want, it is time to move the Spy. Reveal the top card of the Spy Movement deck, and move the Spy in the appropriate direction to a new Location. At the Spy’s new Location, add a Discovery card to its pile. Play continues in this manner until either you make an accusation, or the Spy escapes. In order to make an accusation, you must have Evidence cards in hand, the Spy must be bugged, and you must be at the same Location as the Spy. When you make an accusation, you will reveal any remaining cards under the Evidence and Red Herring Case Files. If you have the 3 matching Evidence cards, you win and apprehend the Spy! BUT if you have the Red Herring card, or you are missing any of the required Evidence cards, you lose. If you haven’t made an accusation in time, the Spy could escape, causing you to lose the game as well – I’ll leave those details for you to discover on your own!
In theory, Harsh Shadows seems like a neat and strategic card game, but how does it hold up in reality? Pretty well, actually! The first thing I want to talk about is how strategic it is, even with its elements of deduction. You need to collect Evidence fast in order to catch the Spy, so what’s the best plan of movement? Also, each Location has a special ability, so is there an ability you need to use now or do you want to wait a bit longer? After using a Location’s ability, it is no longer available for the rest of the game, so you have to time those uses carefully. Along those lines comes the deduction. Sure, you can try to reveal all the Confiscated Items so that you’re 100% sure that you’ve got the right Evidence. But if you don’t work fast enough, the Spy could escape. Are you willing to risk only knowing for sure what 1 piece of Evidence in order to confront the Spy before it’s too late? Or do you want to save up Clues to purchase that coveted Red Herring, to know for sure what not to keep in order to win. There’s a balance of risk with deduction, as well as a real-time element in the sense that the game has a finite amount of rounds. You’re not racing a physical clock, but once the Discovery deck runs out, the Spy is considered to be on the run, on the verge of escaping. Overall, this is a casual card game, but it has a decent amount of strategy to keep you engaged and entertained.
Let’s touch on components for a second. Obviously, this is just a card game, and this is a preview copy. As I said earlier, the final production could differ from this version, but I have to say that this preview copy is good quality. The cards are nice and thick, the artwork thematic and clean. I imagine the rules would get some final edits for slight clarifications, but for the most part the production quality is already pretty decent.
I have to say that Harsh Shadows surprised me. I’d never played a solo game with deduction elements, and it was actually quite exciting. Usually the deduction games I’ve played are based around sussing out a traitor amongst a group of people, so there is that human interaction element that can really help guide your thoughts and decisions. In Harsh Shadows, there’s nobody but yourself – you can’t look for tells in other players because the cards won’t speak to you. It feels riskier in this way because it’s more a game of odds then, instead of your ability to pick out social cues. Other people may feel differently, but I thought this was a neat twist on the deduction mechanic. If you’re looking for a strategic solo game, that plays relatively quickly and casually, I would definitely recommend checking out Harsh Shadows. It goes live on Kickstarter here in April, and I look forward to following its progress!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The pictured components might not be finalized, and could differ after a successful Kickstarter campaign. -L
Harsh Shadows is a solo card game of hand management, grid movement, and deduction where you are an agent working to collect evidence necessary to apprehend an enemy spy. To setup for a game, randomly place the 9 Location cards in a 3×3 grid. Prepare the Discovery deck as described in the rules, place 1 face-down Discovery card to the right of each Location, and place the rest of the deck off to the side of the grid. Shuffle the Confiscated Item cards and deal the appropriate number to each of the Case File cards – 3 to Evidence, 1 to Red Herring, and 4 to False Leads. The Spy card is placed on the upper-left-most Location, and your Agent card on the lower-right-most Location. Shuffle the Spy Movement cards, and the game is ready to begin! It should look similar to the picture below.
The game is played over a series of rounds in which you will be moving your Agent, performing additional actions, and then moving the Spy. The goal is to track down the Spy, with the correct evidence in hand, before the Spy is able to flee the scene. The first thing that you will do each round is to move your Agent. You may only move to a Location that is adjacent or diagonal to your current Location. Once you move to a new Location, you will draw the top Discovery card from that Location. Discovery cards will either be Items, Clues, or Bombs. Items are collected as potential Evidence, Clues are used to reveal Confiscated Items from Case Files, and Bombs force you to discard a card from your tableau. After you have moved and collected a new Discovery card, you may perform any/all of these additional actions: Use Clue Cards, Place the Tracking Bug, Track the Spy, or Use your current Location’s ability. To Use Clue cards, you will discard a number of clues in order to reveal a Confiscated Item card from a Case File. The Confiscated Items under the Evidence Case File show the 3 items you are required to have in hand to apprehend the Spy by the end of the game. The item under the Red Herring, if you have it in hand at game’s end, will cause you to automatically lose. The 4 items under the False Leads will neither help you win, nor cause you to lose – they simply offer fodder for you to discard when necessary.
Another element required to win the game is to place the Tracking Bug on the Spy. On your turn, you may place the Tracking Bug at your current Location card – if the Spy moves to the Location on a future turn, they are considered to be ‘bugged’ and the Tracking Bug is live! Twice per game, you are allowed to Track the Spy. To do so, you will look at the top card of the Spy Movement deck, and return it to the top. This just lets you see to which Location the Spy is about to move. And finally, you can use your Location’s ability. Once you have taken as many of the additional actions as you want, it is time to move the Spy. Reveal the top card of the Spy Movement deck, and move the Spy in the appropriate direction to a new Location. At the Spy’s new Location, add a Discovery card to its pile. Play continues in this manner until either you make an accusation, or the Spy escapes. In order to make an accusation, you must have Evidence cards in hand, the Spy must be bugged, and you must be at the same Location as the Spy. When you make an accusation, you will reveal any remaining cards under the Evidence and Red Herring Case Files. If you have the 3 matching Evidence cards, you win and apprehend the Spy! BUT if you have the Red Herring card, or you are missing any of the required Evidence cards, you lose. If you haven’t made an accusation in time, the Spy could escape, causing you to lose the game as well – I’ll leave those details for you to discover on your own!
In theory, Harsh Shadows seems like a neat and strategic card game, but how does it hold up in reality? Pretty well, actually! The first thing I want to talk about is how strategic it is, even with its elements of deduction. You need to collect Evidence fast in order to catch the Spy, so what’s the best plan of movement? Also, each Location has a special ability, so is there an ability you need to use now or do you want to wait a bit longer? After using a Location’s ability, it is no longer available for the rest of the game, so you have to time those uses carefully. Along those lines comes the deduction. Sure, you can try to reveal all the Confiscated Items so that you’re 100% sure that you’ve got the right Evidence. But if you don’t work fast enough, the Spy could escape. Are you willing to risk only knowing for sure what 1 piece of Evidence in order to confront the Spy before it’s too late? Or do you want to save up Clues to purchase that coveted Red Herring, to know for sure what not to keep in order to win. There’s a balance of risk with deduction, as well as a real-time element in the sense that the game has a finite amount of rounds. You’re not racing a physical clock, but once the Discovery deck runs out, the Spy is considered to be on the run, on the verge of escaping. Overall, this is a casual card game, but it has a decent amount of strategy to keep you engaged and entertained.
Let’s touch on components for a second. Obviously, this is just a card game, and this is a preview copy. As I said earlier, the final production could differ from this version, but I have to say that this preview copy is good quality. The cards are nice and thick, the artwork thematic and clean. I imagine the rules would get some final edits for slight clarifications, but for the most part the production quality is already pretty decent.
I have to say that Harsh Shadows surprised me. I’d never played a solo game with deduction elements, and it was actually quite exciting. Usually the deduction games I’ve played are based around sussing out a traitor amongst a group of people, so there is that human interaction element that can really help guide your thoughts and decisions. In Harsh Shadows, there’s nobody but yourself – you can’t look for tells in other players because the cards won’t speak to you. It feels riskier in this way because it’s more a game of odds then, instead of your ability to pick out social cues. Other people may feel differently, but I thought this was a neat twist on the deduction mechanic. If you’re looking for a strategic solo game, that plays relatively quickly and casually, I would definitely recommend checking out Harsh Shadows. It goes live on Kickstarter here in April, and I look forward to following its progress!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Sep 19, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
I came to this gloriously colourful, energetic and super smart comic book adaptation in August (when Netflix advertised season 2), at a time of lockdown where I really needed something cheerful and fun to keep me going. It worked so well I watched both full seasons twice over, back to back, and key episodes 3 times! A rare thing indeed for me and a TV show.
Since then the rigours of isolation have set me back with a really long backlog for The Wasteland – currently I have a list of over 40 cultural artifacts I want to talk about and share with you- but, I am very glad to be talking about this one today, as even though it wasn’t that long ago, it evokes such fond happy memories of becoming just a little bit obsessed by something. A phenomenon that only seems to happen when you go into something with low to medium expectations and come out feeling like you have found a diamond in the rough.
The concept of 7 children with mysterious powers being adopted and raised by a shady and strict, umbrella wielding, father has been around a few years in the form of several graphic novels, penned by My Chemical Romance frontman Gerard Way. You can feel the vibe of something slightly emo and arty coming through – just cool enough but also self conscious; melancholy and dark in places but also lots of sardonic fun. But, unlike the books, which often look stark and minimal, the world created by show runner and director Steve Blackman is vivid and full to the brim with things to overwhelm the senses.
For the last few years, and especially of late, the Superhero genre has been so oversaturated that it is almost impossible to come up with anything original, but The Umbrella Academy together with Amazon’s The Boys, definitely manage to do that. It has enough mystique to be intriguingly confusing for the first few episodes, as we piece together the Hargreaves’ past that has led to the current situation, and discover the dynamic tension that exists between the adopted siblings. Oh, and there is a talking chimpanzee butler / guardian called Pogo, that feels like CGI gimmickery for a while, before growing into something truly wonderful.
The first thing you notice about this set of misfits, as they reassemble for their father’s funeral after years of bitterness and estrangement, is that they are all a little bit broken and uncomfortable in their own skins – their powers as individuals are all a bit, well frankly underwhelming, and their personalities are not exactly attractive in every case. Season one is all about re-establishing connections and working through identity crises. In many ways it is a coming of age story, as circumstances lead to them needing to grow up fast and join together to achieve true power. It works both on the surface and as a deeper allegory.
As each main character is introduced you inevitably get drawn into ranking them from most to least favourite, and the trick of it is how much those feelings shift as the story progresses. Everyone loves Klaus, the twitchy junkie who can see dead people, his completely non heroic yet hilariously stoned outlook gives him many of the best lines and most fun scenes. I changed allegiance several times with the others, but Klaus, played by the charismatic Irish actor Robert Sheehan, always remained my favourite, because of his hippie rockstar vibe. Although it’s hard not to have a soft spot for Number 5, the time travelling schoolboy that has been missing for years and re-emerges as a middle aged man still trapped in the boys’ body. Aiden Gillen is superb in conveying that he is older whilst always looking like a teenager, and in many ways he is the true pivot and anchor of the story.
I suppose before the show aired it was Ellen Page that was the “star” draw amongst the young and mostly unknown cast of “heroes”. As Vanya, the only Hargreaves child never to demonstrate a power, and held aside by their controlling father, she is the outsider and most insecure of the bunch. You sense her storyline is going to be crucial to the whole shebang, and so it turns out, but her fame as an actress of note never overshadows the show as a whole – it feels instantly like a group effort, and in that sense a true family, the deeper you get into it.
I could go on explaining each character and the details of the intricate plot forever, but I would never do it justice. The only way to see what the fuss is about is to watch it. Anything else would just sound like mad confusion to the uninitiated. All I can say is that it does an incredible job of unfolding its charms and secrets piece by piece. So much so that by the climax of season two I am still not entirely sure we have all the information necessary to know what is going on in a complete sense; there are several questions and mysteries still to be unearthed, and I like that very much.
I have recommended this show to anyone I know who enjoys something entertaining that has substance yet doesn’t take itself too seriously – so that is everyone then! I think it’s allure is that very thing: it manages to hit a zeitgeist of perfect balance between a smart script and plotline with many cliffhangers, and enough disposable moments of fun, to be exactly what the modern Netflix viewer is looking for. Super easy to watch with one eye or with both, depending on what mood you are in.
There is also the style of the thing – a veritable candy box of colours and neat visual tricks, mixed in with some of the best musical montage sequences I have ever seen. I understand from several interviews that Steve Blackman specifically wrote certain scenes around the feel of a piece of music he wanted to include. That is a clever way of building a cult following: find songs that both tell a story and appeal to the cool kids, then use them as mini music video segments that punctuate the heavier elements of storytelling. It’s not a new trick, but the song choices here are so good that it has rarely been done this well before.
It all works especially well as we move into season two and an historical context that brings up a lot of pertinent issues for some of the siblings regarding race, sexuality and other freedoms of identity that can be taken for granted in the modern era. I don’t want to spoil too much of that here, but suffice to say as a hook to pin the themes on it is a genius touch that makes season two a huge leap forward on something that was already pretty decent in season one. All the characters become more rounded and relatable, even the so called bad guys – an increasingly eccentric bunch of creations that leave you in no doubt this is a comic book world not to be confused with reality.
At time of writing, a third season has still not being given the greenlight. Considering the massive cliffhanger we are left with at the end of season two, and how big the cult following seems to be by now, it would be an absolute crime not to allow it to continue. The only reason I can see it wouldn’t is that the stories of the source material are now exhausted, and anywhere they go from here will need to be truly original. However, there is so much scope to do almost anything from here that I don’t see it as any kind of issue.
If you haven’t seen it, I urge you whole-heartedly to give it a go. There really is something in there to please everyone, except perhaps the most serious minded of realists. Even then, they’d be hard pressed not to raise a smile or tap a toe at some of the best musical moments of emo hero mayhem.
Since then the rigours of isolation have set me back with a really long backlog for The Wasteland – currently I have a list of over 40 cultural artifacts I want to talk about and share with you- but, I am very glad to be talking about this one today, as even though it wasn’t that long ago, it evokes such fond happy memories of becoming just a little bit obsessed by something. A phenomenon that only seems to happen when you go into something with low to medium expectations and come out feeling like you have found a diamond in the rough.
The concept of 7 children with mysterious powers being adopted and raised by a shady and strict, umbrella wielding, father has been around a few years in the form of several graphic novels, penned by My Chemical Romance frontman Gerard Way. You can feel the vibe of something slightly emo and arty coming through – just cool enough but also self conscious; melancholy and dark in places but also lots of sardonic fun. But, unlike the books, which often look stark and minimal, the world created by show runner and director Steve Blackman is vivid and full to the brim with things to overwhelm the senses.
For the last few years, and especially of late, the Superhero genre has been so oversaturated that it is almost impossible to come up with anything original, but The Umbrella Academy together with Amazon’s The Boys, definitely manage to do that. It has enough mystique to be intriguingly confusing for the first few episodes, as we piece together the Hargreaves’ past that has led to the current situation, and discover the dynamic tension that exists between the adopted siblings. Oh, and there is a talking chimpanzee butler / guardian called Pogo, that feels like CGI gimmickery for a while, before growing into something truly wonderful.
The first thing you notice about this set of misfits, as they reassemble for their father’s funeral after years of bitterness and estrangement, is that they are all a little bit broken and uncomfortable in their own skins – their powers as individuals are all a bit, well frankly underwhelming, and their personalities are not exactly attractive in every case. Season one is all about re-establishing connections and working through identity crises. In many ways it is a coming of age story, as circumstances lead to them needing to grow up fast and join together to achieve true power. It works both on the surface and as a deeper allegory.
As each main character is introduced you inevitably get drawn into ranking them from most to least favourite, and the trick of it is how much those feelings shift as the story progresses. Everyone loves Klaus, the twitchy junkie who can see dead people, his completely non heroic yet hilariously stoned outlook gives him many of the best lines and most fun scenes. I changed allegiance several times with the others, but Klaus, played by the charismatic Irish actor Robert Sheehan, always remained my favourite, because of his hippie rockstar vibe. Although it’s hard not to have a soft spot for Number 5, the time travelling schoolboy that has been missing for years and re-emerges as a middle aged man still trapped in the boys’ body. Aiden Gillen is superb in conveying that he is older whilst always looking like a teenager, and in many ways he is the true pivot and anchor of the story.
I suppose before the show aired it was Ellen Page that was the “star” draw amongst the young and mostly unknown cast of “heroes”. As Vanya, the only Hargreaves child never to demonstrate a power, and held aside by their controlling father, she is the outsider and most insecure of the bunch. You sense her storyline is going to be crucial to the whole shebang, and so it turns out, but her fame as an actress of note never overshadows the show as a whole – it feels instantly like a group effort, and in that sense a true family, the deeper you get into it.
I could go on explaining each character and the details of the intricate plot forever, but I would never do it justice. The only way to see what the fuss is about is to watch it. Anything else would just sound like mad confusion to the uninitiated. All I can say is that it does an incredible job of unfolding its charms and secrets piece by piece. So much so that by the climax of season two I am still not entirely sure we have all the information necessary to know what is going on in a complete sense; there are several questions and mysteries still to be unearthed, and I like that very much.
I have recommended this show to anyone I know who enjoys something entertaining that has substance yet doesn’t take itself too seriously – so that is everyone then! I think it’s allure is that very thing: it manages to hit a zeitgeist of perfect balance between a smart script and plotline with many cliffhangers, and enough disposable moments of fun, to be exactly what the modern Netflix viewer is looking for. Super easy to watch with one eye or with both, depending on what mood you are in.
There is also the style of the thing – a veritable candy box of colours and neat visual tricks, mixed in with some of the best musical montage sequences I have ever seen. I understand from several interviews that Steve Blackman specifically wrote certain scenes around the feel of a piece of music he wanted to include. That is a clever way of building a cult following: find songs that both tell a story and appeal to the cool kids, then use them as mini music video segments that punctuate the heavier elements of storytelling. It’s not a new trick, but the song choices here are so good that it has rarely been done this well before.
It all works especially well as we move into season two and an historical context that brings up a lot of pertinent issues for some of the siblings regarding race, sexuality and other freedoms of identity that can be taken for granted in the modern era. I don’t want to spoil too much of that here, but suffice to say as a hook to pin the themes on it is a genius touch that makes season two a huge leap forward on something that was already pretty decent in season one. All the characters become more rounded and relatable, even the so called bad guys – an increasingly eccentric bunch of creations that leave you in no doubt this is a comic book world not to be confused with reality.
At time of writing, a third season has still not being given the greenlight. Considering the massive cliffhanger we are left with at the end of season two, and how big the cult following seems to be by now, it would be an absolute crime not to allow it to continue. The only reason I can see it wouldn’t is that the stories of the source material are now exhausted, and anywhere they go from here will need to be truly original. However, there is so much scope to do almost anything from here that I don’t see it as any kind of issue.
If you haven’t seen it, I urge you whole-heartedly to give it a go. There really is something in there to please everyone, except perhaps the most serious minded of realists. Even then, they’d be hard pressed not to raise a smile or tap a toe at some of the best musical moments of emo hero mayhem.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
May 18, 2019
"I can save today, you can save the world"
Remember when some trickster claiming to be a former worker from Warner Bros. wrote an open letter saying that Wonder Woman was just another mess of a DC movie, et cetera? I remember how Patty Jenkins responded to that. She tweeted: "Just wait and you'll see".
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Mandalorian in TV
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Being a child of Star Wars, born in ’73, whose first memory of a cinema was A New Hope in ’77, of course the entire franchise is still close to my heart. I am no superfan, however. I do not need to remember every name of every character, or know the obscure names of planets to enjoy it. I remember that deeply competitive nature back in the playground – how important it was to prove Star Wars was yours by knowing more than any other kid! Fortunately I managed to let that go shortly after The Return of the Jedi. Ok, maybe 1995.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of “the canonical Star Wars” universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geek’s wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isn’t crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly – the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isn’t actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in – Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I can’t imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, let’s face it… The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you haven’t finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. It’ll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isn’t all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and can’t bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisley’s cantina as real without hesitation. It doesn’t have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is – for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesn’t hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. It’s as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look it’s Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we can’t fail… plus we have The Child and Boba Fett’s (yes, I know) armour, we can’t fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But don’t worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so we’re all good! I’m sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) can’t believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, let’s just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3…? I wonder where they will take that now…? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of “the canonical Star Wars” universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geek’s wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isn’t crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly – the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isn’t actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in – Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I can’t imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, let’s face it… The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you haven’t finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. It’ll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isn’t all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and can’t bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisley’s cantina as real without hesitation. It doesn’t have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is – for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesn’t hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. It’s as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look it’s Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we can’t fail… plus we have The Child and Boba Fett’s (yes, I know) armour, we can’t fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But don’t worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so we’re all good! I’m sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) can’t believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, let’s just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3…? I wonder where they will take that now…? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated Honour in Books
Nov 5, 2018
This review was originally carried out as part of a blog tour on Lily Loves Indie and can be seen here http://lilylovesindie.co.uk/?p=209
This stunning collection of short stories has got to be one of my favourite items on my kindle. When I read these I experienced such a depth of emotion and they moved me so much that I had to keep putting it down to get tissues and mop up the mess that I became. This, by far, is Feeney's greatest work to date. She elicits such a wonderful amount of emotion from you, and this is all the more remarkable when you consider that some of the stories are just a few thousand words long. In order to do each story the justice they truly deserve, I am going to briefly review each book before summing up my main ideas. So if you're sitting comfortably, I'll begin....
Honour
A young woman at a graveside, the rain falling down, already the emotions are running high, and this is just the first paragraph of the story, yet I'm hooked. Throughout the whole of this story Feeney leads you in a direction, letting your imagination fill the gaps, but then at the last minute she deals her hand and tells you exactly what is going on, and boy did it knock me for six! I was most definitely not expecting that turn of events, but strangely, it totally fitted. Apologies for the vagueness, but I don't want to spoil it for you as this is one of the key features of this story.
Deserter
Just as the title suggests, this story deals with a deserter, the officer who tries to cover it up and his family dealing with his actions at home. I know what you're thinking, there's enough material there to write a whole book! But Feeney writes this superbly, capturing the emotions of all the key characters in just a few short chapters. Jack's dilemma, and the reasoning behind his desertion, are both incredibly touching and very sensitively written. As someone who can't even begin to comprehend what horrors soldiers must see every day, I really feel like Feeney gave us a glimpse into a tortured mind, a soul that was broken and in need of so much healing that just simply wasn't available. She also deals fantastically with the stigma attached to deserting in a very delicate and sensitive manner, highlighting the other side of the story incredibly well.
Silence is Deafening
I've read and re-read this story so many times, but it still kills me every time! It's so emotionally written, charged with sadness and a sense of duty, a sense of honour. Strangely, I engaged more with Evelyn as I found myself imagining what her emotions would be when she wakes up and reads Joseph's letter. I could feel the ties that bound them together being strained and pulled, the pain they must have felt. It was just so well written the intensity of their love was completely real, it charged the room around my and stole my breath. But what I loved most about this story is that there was hope at the end. He might have survived, he might have come back. The tiniest glimmer was there, and it captured my imagination and sent seeds of thought rooting deep in my head. It's not a story you'll forget in a hurry, but in the best possible way!
Letters to No One
This is perhaps my favourite military based story I've ever written, but for me it is head and shoulders above the others in this collection. I could talk for hours about why I loved this story so much, but I'll try and summarise it and not spoil anything. The strongest feature of this particular story is it's wonderful believability and 'normal' way of approaching what is, to non-military families at least, a very abnormal situation. The letters are funny, yet very much full of a sadness at the separation and need to see each other one more time. Jonno is a great character, and although he doesn't feature much directly, it's the indirect references to him in his families letters which really bring him to life. Little Michael is totally adorable, and his letter is perhaps my favourite purely for the innocence only a child can have. The whole story touched me more than any other in this collection, eliciting full on body shaking sobs and I can only conclude that it is because it is a. wonderfully written and b. incredibly realistic. As much as I hate to admit it, this has probably happened to countless families out there, and that immense sadness just crushed me and opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at things.
Night Terrors
Initially, I found this quite difficult to get into, it's the one story in the collection I wasn't over keen on as I read through. However, it's a bit of a 'grower' and, like 'Silence is Deafening', it planted hundreds of little seeds of thought in my brain and when given time to develop they just grew and grew until they were out of control. Dealing with what is essentially PTSD, and how it affects not only the sufferer but also their family, 'Night Terrors' has so much it can teach the reader. We all think nothing of our 'normal' lives, but this was another story that really opened my eyes to the troubles being in the military can cause. Carl's dad clearly struggled for years, never feeling he could discuss him experiences and so they literally terrorised his dreams. It's incredibly sensitive in how the story deals with what is a very current and prevalent issue and Feeney deserves a great deal of credit for not only having the balls to deal with this subject matter, but also for doing it so brilliantly. Again, this is another emotionally charged piece of writing, but Feeney really does develop the plot so well and so subtly that it sucks you in without you noticing.
Welcome Home
The final story in the collection is as wonderful as the others. A happy ending, a reunion, a feeling of hope to carry forward. This is the ending we all want for all our soldiers, and Feeney cleverly reminds us that no matter how many may perish, and however sad that may be, we must always keep looking for that glimmer of hope, and take the opportunities of happiness that are offered to us when they are there, because we never know when they will be snatched away.
One of the key features in all of these stories is how engaging they are, despite what is, at times, very upsetting subject matter. The characters pull you in, the circumstances, although fictional, are tinged with a reality that brings you crashing down to ground when you think about them after (and believe me, you will) and you realise, 'that could have actually happened to someone'. It's a humbling thought, and one that really makes you think, but in a good way. Reading this book made me so much more thankful for the sacrifices servicemen and woman make, and the pain their families must experience, but mostly it made me grateful for my own life.
Something else that shines through is how real everything feels in these stories. I know Feeney did a large amount of research into military procedures and that is evident with the protocols, the addresses, the description, just everything really! It's clear that this writing means a lot to the author, and that passion for respect and honour of our armed forces just oozes from every page and fills you with a great sense of pride and patriotism. It's strange to feel proud of something when you're reading (unless it's something you've written), but Feeney manages to elicit that, as well as many other emotions as you're reading and it just builds to a huge crescendo.
Another key feature is the description, and this is a theme that is evident throughout the whole collection. Feeney puts so much into her writing. You can clearly see in your mind the characters, you can feel the emotions, you hurt when they hurt, smile when they smile. It's her attention to the small detail in this story that really gives this story that extra something. Even though you don't know all the specifics like names and ages, we know plenty to cry for their loss and smile with them in their joy. You hurt when they hurt. It's very rare I find a story that moves me in such a way, especially one that is just pages long, but that is exactly what this story does.
In conclusion, this book is truly phenomenal, one of the best pieces of literature I have read so far this year. It's engaging, thought provoking, realistic, easy to read, but above all, it's just, well, words fail me. Honestly, I cannot recommend this highly enough. Five stars is not enough for this book, and it truly deserves the highest accolades possible. Seriously, go one-click! It's now available on Amazon UK and Amazon US, but heed my warning, you want a lot of tissues near you when you read this, tear-jerker doesn't quite cover it!
* * * * * *
I am SO excited about reviewing this and interviewing the author over on Lily Loves Indie and Ramble Media on 1st November as part of the Blog Tour! Watch this space for updates and snippets of my review.
This stunning collection of short stories has got to be one of my favourite items on my kindle. When I read these I experienced such a depth of emotion and they moved me so much that I had to keep putting it down to get tissues and mop up the mess that I became. This, by far, is Feeney's greatest work to date. She elicits such a wonderful amount of emotion from you, and this is all the more remarkable when you consider that some of the stories are just a few thousand words long. In order to do each story the justice they truly deserve, I am going to briefly review each book before summing up my main ideas. So if you're sitting comfortably, I'll begin....
Honour
A young woman at a graveside, the rain falling down, already the emotions are running high, and this is just the first paragraph of the story, yet I'm hooked. Throughout the whole of this story Feeney leads you in a direction, letting your imagination fill the gaps, but then at the last minute she deals her hand and tells you exactly what is going on, and boy did it knock me for six! I was most definitely not expecting that turn of events, but strangely, it totally fitted. Apologies for the vagueness, but I don't want to spoil it for you as this is one of the key features of this story.
Deserter
Just as the title suggests, this story deals with a deserter, the officer who tries to cover it up and his family dealing with his actions at home. I know what you're thinking, there's enough material there to write a whole book! But Feeney writes this superbly, capturing the emotions of all the key characters in just a few short chapters. Jack's dilemma, and the reasoning behind his desertion, are both incredibly touching and very sensitively written. As someone who can't even begin to comprehend what horrors soldiers must see every day, I really feel like Feeney gave us a glimpse into a tortured mind, a soul that was broken and in need of so much healing that just simply wasn't available. She also deals fantastically with the stigma attached to deserting in a very delicate and sensitive manner, highlighting the other side of the story incredibly well.
Silence is Deafening
I've read and re-read this story so many times, but it still kills me every time! It's so emotionally written, charged with sadness and a sense of duty, a sense of honour. Strangely, I engaged more with Evelyn as I found myself imagining what her emotions would be when she wakes up and reads Joseph's letter. I could feel the ties that bound them together being strained and pulled, the pain they must have felt. It was just so well written the intensity of their love was completely real, it charged the room around my and stole my breath. But what I loved most about this story is that there was hope at the end. He might have survived, he might have come back. The tiniest glimmer was there, and it captured my imagination and sent seeds of thought rooting deep in my head. It's not a story you'll forget in a hurry, but in the best possible way!
Letters to No One
This is perhaps my favourite military based story I've ever written, but for me it is head and shoulders above the others in this collection. I could talk for hours about why I loved this story so much, but I'll try and summarise it and not spoil anything. The strongest feature of this particular story is it's wonderful believability and 'normal' way of approaching what is, to non-military families at least, a very abnormal situation. The letters are funny, yet very much full of a sadness at the separation and need to see each other one more time. Jonno is a great character, and although he doesn't feature much directly, it's the indirect references to him in his families letters which really bring him to life. Little Michael is totally adorable, and his letter is perhaps my favourite purely for the innocence only a child can have. The whole story touched me more than any other in this collection, eliciting full on body shaking sobs and I can only conclude that it is because it is a. wonderfully written and b. incredibly realistic. As much as I hate to admit it, this has probably happened to countless families out there, and that immense sadness just crushed me and opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at things.
Night Terrors
Initially, I found this quite difficult to get into, it's the one story in the collection I wasn't over keen on as I read through. However, it's a bit of a 'grower' and, like 'Silence is Deafening', it planted hundreds of little seeds of thought in my brain and when given time to develop they just grew and grew until they were out of control. Dealing with what is essentially PTSD, and how it affects not only the sufferer but also their family, 'Night Terrors' has so much it can teach the reader. We all think nothing of our 'normal' lives, but this was another story that really opened my eyes to the troubles being in the military can cause. Carl's dad clearly struggled for years, never feeling he could discuss him experiences and so they literally terrorised his dreams. It's incredibly sensitive in how the story deals with what is a very current and prevalent issue and Feeney deserves a great deal of credit for not only having the balls to deal with this subject matter, but also for doing it so brilliantly. Again, this is another emotionally charged piece of writing, but Feeney really does develop the plot so well and so subtly that it sucks you in without you noticing.
Welcome Home
The final story in the collection is as wonderful as the others. A happy ending, a reunion, a feeling of hope to carry forward. This is the ending we all want for all our soldiers, and Feeney cleverly reminds us that no matter how many may perish, and however sad that may be, we must always keep looking for that glimmer of hope, and take the opportunities of happiness that are offered to us when they are there, because we never know when they will be snatched away.
One of the key features in all of these stories is how engaging they are, despite what is, at times, very upsetting subject matter. The characters pull you in, the circumstances, although fictional, are tinged with a reality that brings you crashing down to ground when you think about them after (and believe me, you will) and you realise, 'that could have actually happened to someone'. It's a humbling thought, and one that really makes you think, but in a good way. Reading this book made me so much more thankful for the sacrifices servicemen and woman make, and the pain their families must experience, but mostly it made me grateful for my own life.
Something else that shines through is how real everything feels in these stories. I know Feeney did a large amount of research into military procedures and that is evident with the protocols, the addresses, the description, just everything really! It's clear that this writing means a lot to the author, and that passion for respect and honour of our armed forces just oozes from every page and fills you with a great sense of pride and patriotism. It's strange to feel proud of something when you're reading (unless it's something you've written), but Feeney manages to elicit that, as well as many other emotions as you're reading and it just builds to a huge crescendo.
Another key feature is the description, and this is a theme that is evident throughout the whole collection. Feeney puts so much into her writing. You can clearly see in your mind the characters, you can feel the emotions, you hurt when they hurt, smile when they smile. It's her attention to the small detail in this story that really gives this story that extra something. Even though you don't know all the specifics like names and ages, we know plenty to cry for their loss and smile with them in their joy. You hurt when they hurt. It's very rare I find a story that moves me in such a way, especially one that is just pages long, but that is exactly what this story does.
In conclusion, this book is truly phenomenal, one of the best pieces of literature I have read so far this year. It's engaging, thought provoking, realistic, easy to read, but above all, it's just, well, words fail me. Honestly, I cannot recommend this highly enough. Five stars is not enough for this book, and it truly deserves the highest accolades possible. Seriously, go one-click! It's now available on Amazon UK and Amazon US, but heed my warning, you want a lot of tissues near you when you read this, tear-jerker doesn't quite cover it!
* * * * * *
I am SO excited about reviewing this and interviewing the author over on Lily Loves Indie and Ramble Media on 1st November as part of the Blog Tour! Watch this space for updates and snippets of my review.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)