Search
Search results
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Seize the Night (Dark-Hunter, #5) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Another absolutely wonderful addition to the Dark-Hunter series - I loved it! Tabitha was way better than I expected (I was worried she would be too much) and Valerius was as great as I had hoped. What can I say? I love tortured heroes, and he's one of the best. I felt so much for him and hated how horrid the others treated him for no good reason - other than being judgmental @$$es anyway, especially Kyrian. Now I don't remember much about <i>Night Pleasures</i> for some reason, probably because it is my least favorite in the series, but I thought Kyrian was such a you-know-what with how he treated Valerius. I mean, come on, he was just a five-year-old for crying out loud. Jerk. Same goes with Zarek, but I understand that a bit more. But really, couldn't these idiots have gotten over something that happened 2,000 years ago, instead of acting like children? Grow up already and face facts, he was just a kid who didn't do anything to Kyrian, tried to help Zarek, and was born a Roman. Poor guy. He never knew kindness until Tabitha.
Closer to the end there were some real shockers and since Nick was featured in <i>Night Pleasures</i>, I need to get my hands on that book to re-read it, so I can reacquaint myself to him and the story. Maybe then I'd like it better and be able to remember more from it. I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who has not read it yet, but this is one well-paced and plotted book! :)
As much as I loved the book, I was rather disappointed with the ending. It was rushed and was a good thirty or more pages shorter than other Dark-Hunter books. I felt that there needed to be more. The truce was rather lame and anti-climatic and so was the soul thing (or whatever it should be called) with Tabitha and Valerius. However, I loved the epilogue, and overall it is one of my faves of the series, I just wish more justice could have been done to the end of Valerius's story.
Closer to the end there were some real shockers and since Nick was featured in <i>Night Pleasures</i>, I need to get my hands on that book to re-read it, so I can reacquaint myself to him and the story. Maybe then I'd like it better and be able to remember more from it. I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who has not read it yet, but this is one well-paced and plotted book! :)
As much as I loved the book, I was rather disappointed with the ending. It was rushed and was a good thirty or more pages shorter than other Dark-Hunter books. I felt that there needed to be more. The truce was rather lame and anti-climatic and so was the soul thing (or whatever it should be called) with Tabitha and Valerius. However, I loved the epilogue, and overall it is one of my faves of the series, I just wish more justice could have been done to the end of Valerius's story.
Molly J (Cover To Cover Cafe) (106 KP) rated The Masterpiece in Books
Feb 27, 2019
I've only read Redeeming Love and the Marta's Legacy books by Ms. Rivers. Her work is amazing with those books. They have all the feels within them and just make you want to come back for more. So, when I saw she was releasing The Masterpiece, I didn't pass on it. I was anxious to be taken to a writing style that only Ms. Rivers knows how to do. I was absolutely pleased with all that I felt with this book!
This book has amazing characters. Roman and Grace are created with such depth and complexity. They were true-to-life and really nestled into my soul. The way they interacted, the way their story unfolds on the pages, really shined for me. As someone who was in Honors Art 4 for four years of highschool, I always fall for books that center around the world of art. I could feel Roman's artistic ways flow freely off the pages. And Grace, being a single mom, really nudged at me. I love when I connect with the characters on a deeper level.
This book is beyond 5 stars. I wasn't able to put it down once I picked it up. The pages kept turning, the feelings kept being felt. I smiled, I cried, I smiled again. The inspiration that Ms. Rivers weaves into this romance novel is incredible. It really brings to light the ultimate Masterpiece from above. If you are looking for a book that will be easy reading, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a book that will make you laugh throughout, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a book that will sweep you off your feet, spin you in a million directions, twist your soul, and throw you down with a bam, this is absolutely the book for you. You'll think about this book long after you've closed the cover. Well done, Ms. Rivers! Fantabulous job!
*I received a complimentary copy of this book from Publisher/Tyndale Blog Network and was under no obligation to post a review, positive or negative.*
This book has amazing characters. Roman and Grace are created with such depth and complexity. They were true-to-life and really nestled into my soul. The way they interacted, the way their story unfolds on the pages, really shined for me. As someone who was in Honors Art 4 for four years of highschool, I always fall for books that center around the world of art. I could feel Roman's artistic ways flow freely off the pages. And Grace, being a single mom, really nudged at me. I love when I connect with the characters on a deeper level.
This book is beyond 5 stars. I wasn't able to put it down once I picked it up. The pages kept turning, the feelings kept being felt. I smiled, I cried, I smiled again. The inspiration that Ms. Rivers weaves into this romance novel is incredible. It really brings to light the ultimate Masterpiece from above. If you are looking for a book that will be easy reading, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a book that will make you laugh throughout, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a book that will sweep you off your feet, spin you in a million directions, twist your soul, and throw you down with a bam, this is absolutely the book for you. You'll think about this book long after you've closed the cover. Well done, Ms. Rivers! Fantabulous job!
*I received a complimentary copy of this book from Publisher/Tyndale Blog Network and was under no obligation to post a review, positive or negative.*
StorybookConfectionary (1 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 9, 2018
The pace is supposed to feel languid like the summer vacation they are having. (11 more)
The characters are developed early on, like Oliver's knowledge of etymology that would be a cliché of the "protagonist as genius" had it not been a simply test.
Elio's name comes from 'helios' or sun and fits his personality in the sense that he is generous with his time, brilliant by definition of his current state of youth in mind and body, and he is restless in love.
The peach scene is heartbreaking.
The fireplace is a cinematographic style we don't see a lot as an Ameeican audience, where the camera stays in one place and we look through Elios for a long time. It should feel discomforting.
Elios' girl approaches him first even though she recognizes he used her and even when she said she was most afraid of getting hurt. She tells him she's sorry to see him sad, that she loves him, and then extends her hand for a reconciliation.
Elios takes her hand only when she promises her friendship is forever. So while romance is fleeting and he has the courage to proceed, he cannot give up the commitment of duration as prerequisite in a friendship.
The flies throughout the movie feel natural to the countryside but can also signify the attraction to: the sweetness of fruit, the rotting of fruit, and the indiscriminatory chances that warmth gives to living things.
These flies deserve an additional block for their amount of screentime, a motif of desire that obstructs the viewer's sight and buzzes us into a haze. We are, unbeknownst to ourselves, directed towards empathy for the characters.
Romance should be prolonged. Teased until it hits a climax and cannot be resisted anymore. Elio and everyone else hits a note of ecstasy once Oliver gives into the beauty of a body.
It's amazing how this story is founded on and driven by the conversations between Greek philosophy and Roman conquests. The Greeks thought sculpture could answer their question about knowledge/beauty.
Romance, because it ends, remains so good, nostalgic, and desirable.
Summer love
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Do You Love in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Tiger Warrior (Jack Howard #4) in Books
Nov 26, 2019
The Tiger Warrior follows archaeologist and adventurer Jack Howard as he follows a tantalising clue that perhaps some escaped Roman legionaries had found themselves pitched against the bodyguard of the First Emperor of China and one had taken refuge in the jungles of India.
This might sound far-fetched but Gibbins knows his archaeology and comes up with a plausible (if tenuous) story to make this work. The story is then taken up at the end of the 19th century in India when Howard's great great grandfather is part of the British Royal Engineers Corps trying to push roads - and hence British rule - into the jungle. He stumbles across an old temple that contains a secret.
The story roves around the the world showing us some incredible - but real - historic sites across Asia. Genuine books and records are quoted to back up the (modern day) Howard's quest to find out what happened - to both the Romans and his antecedant. Everything has very solid historical underpinnings with the more fantastic elements of the story cleverly weaved between them.
I did enjoy the book but it wasn't an unqualified success. There isn't really much menace, threat or drama in what happens to Jack Howard and his associates as they follow the past (told in a series of flashback chapters), uncovering clues one step at a time. Yes there are 'bad guys' but they seem quite ineffectual and the 'big boss' is in fact never seen at all but only mentioned in passing towards the end of the book. Judging by the notes from the author this is a very personal book - the character and story of Jack's ancestor in India is very much based on his own forebear - and this limits the scope for making the pieces fit into a pleasing whole.
That isn't to say I didn't enjoy reading it - as a subtle way of introducing surprising archaeological facts it works well (I didn't know that Ancient Rome traded with India but apparently so) and some of the set pieces are gripping to read. I will certainly be finding another Jack Howard book to read, but I suspect this was too personal a project for my first taste, which is s shame.
This might sound far-fetched but Gibbins knows his archaeology and comes up with a plausible (if tenuous) story to make this work. The story is then taken up at the end of the 19th century in India when Howard's great great grandfather is part of the British Royal Engineers Corps trying to push roads - and hence British rule - into the jungle. He stumbles across an old temple that contains a secret.
The story roves around the the world showing us some incredible - but real - historic sites across Asia. Genuine books and records are quoted to back up the (modern day) Howard's quest to find out what happened - to both the Romans and his antecedant. Everything has very solid historical underpinnings with the more fantastic elements of the story cleverly weaved between them.
I did enjoy the book but it wasn't an unqualified success. There isn't really much menace, threat or drama in what happens to Jack Howard and his associates as they follow the past (told in a series of flashback chapters), uncovering clues one step at a time. Yes there are 'bad guys' but they seem quite ineffectual and the 'big boss' is in fact never seen at all but only mentioned in passing towards the end of the book. Judging by the notes from the author this is a very personal book - the character and story of Jack's ancestor in India is very much based on his own forebear - and this limits the scope for making the pieces fit into a pleasing whole.
That isn't to say I didn't enjoy reading it - as a subtle way of introducing surprising archaeological facts it works well (I didn't know that Ancient Rome traded with India but apparently so) and some of the set pieces are gripping to read. I will certainly be finding another Jack Howard book to read, but I suspect this was too personal a project for my first taste, which is s shame.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 16, 2020 (Updated Jan 16, 2020)
Cutting satire (1 more)
Great ensemble cast
Don't be stupid, be a smarty
Taika Waititi's much discussed movie is an odd beast. Set in a small German town towards the end of the war, Jojo (Roman Griffith Davis), is a young boy indoctrinated with Nazi fervour as a member of the Hitler youth. Together with his rotund and bespectacled friend Yorki (Archie Yates), they are not likely to spread fear into the approaching Allied forces: they are a pair that would be likely to get picked last for 'sides' in a school football match.
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019
Roman Griffin Davis stars as Jojo Betzler in Taika Waititi’s black comedy Jojo Rabbit. Along with his second best friend Yorki (Archie Yates), Jojo is a part of a Nazi training camp for young boys and girls to become the men and women suited for Hitler supporting soldiers. Meanwhile, Jojo’s mom Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is secretly hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) within the walls of their home. Jojo, who is incredibly adamant about Hitler becoming his first best friend, has Hitler as an imaginary friend (portrayed by Taika Waititi) who shows up whenever Jojo seems to need a pep talk.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Dante's Inferno (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
A commercial for the Dante's Inferno video game aired during Super Bowl XLIV, which gave viewers the impression that the game would be incredibly reminiscent of games like Devil May Cry and God of War. Although I never played the game, Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic was sent to me by the Amazon Vine program. My expectations weren't very high and that seemed to pay off in the long run. The animated feature takes the Batman: Gotham Knight approach where six different animation directors take hold of the film, but Dante's Inferno tells one semi-coherent story.
The film surely has no issue with showing graphic violence, gore, or nudity as there rarely isn't a moment in the 77 minute feature where buckets of blood aren't falling from the sky or where Dante's beloved Beatrice isn't exposing her rather well-endowed set of breasts. The changes in animation seemed rather infrequent and drastic at times while at others it felt a bit more natural. The voice acting is pretty top notch as the film utilizes voice actor veterans such as Mark Hamill, Steve Blum, and Kevin Michael Richardson.
Dante's descent through the nine circles of hell was unintentionally humorous at times though.; the main example being when he's fighting off and fleeing from the army of dead babies in Limbo. Also, his father accepting Lucifer's offer to work for him in exchange for all the gold he desired and the slaying of his mortal son wasn't surprising, but the fact that his mouth now looked like female genitalia was. Certain things just didn't add up at times. In the end, Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic isn't terrible but isn't fantastic either. It's not worth hunting down specifically, but is worth sitting through on a rainy day afternoon or something.
The only special features included on the DVD are the EA game trailer and animatics for five scenes in the film.
For those interested in which animation studio did what, here they are in order:
Film Roman (American animation studio)
Manglobe (Samurai Champloo) picks up when Dante enters Limbo (directed by Shuko Mirase who did Ergo Proxy and Witch Hunter Robin, easily the best out of the bunch)
Dongwoo Animation handles the next four circles of Hell (unfortunately)
JM Animation steps in when Virgil and Dante reach the City of Dis
The final circle is handled by Production I.G.
The film surely has no issue with showing graphic violence, gore, or nudity as there rarely isn't a moment in the 77 minute feature where buckets of blood aren't falling from the sky or where Dante's beloved Beatrice isn't exposing her rather well-endowed set of breasts. The changes in animation seemed rather infrequent and drastic at times while at others it felt a bit more natural. The voice acting is pretty top notch as the film utilizes voice actor veterans such as Mark Hamill, Steve Blum, and Kevin Michael Richardson.
Dante's descent through the nine circles of hell was unintentionally humorous at times though.; the main example being when he's fighting off and fleeing from the army of dead babies in Limbo. Also, his father accepting Lucifer's offer to work for him in exchange for all the gold he desired and the slaying of his mortal son wasn't surprising, but the fact that his mouth now looked like female genitalia was. Certain things just didn't add up at times. In the end, Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic isn't terrible but isn't fantastic either. It's not worth hunting down specifically, but is worth sitting through on a rainy day afternoon or something.
The only special features included on the DVD are the EA game trailer and animatics for five scenes in the film.
For those interested in which animation studio did what, here they are in order:
Film Roman (American animation studio)
Manglobe (Samurai Champloo) picks up when Dante enters Limbo (directed by Shuko Mirase who did Ergo Proxy and Witch Hunter Robin, easily the best out of the bunch)
Dongwoo Animation handles the next four circles of Hell (unfortunately)
JM Animation steps in when Virgil and Dante reach the City of Dis
The final circle is handled by Production I.G.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Not The Best In The Series But A Good Farewell
Angel Has Fallen is a 2019 action/thriller movie directed by Ric Roman Waugh with screenplay written by Waugh, Robert Mark Kamen and Matt Cook from story by Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt. Producers on the film included Gerard Butler, Alan Siegel, Matt O'Toole, John Thompson, Les Weldon, and Yariv Lerner. It was produced by Millennium Media, G-Base and distributed by Lionsgate. The film stars Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman, Jada Pinkett Smith, Piper Perabo, and Lance Reddick.
Undergoing training at a private military facility, Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) finds himself hiding the fact that he's suffering from migraines, insomnia and self-medicating to deal with severe back pain. He is nominated by the President Alan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman), for the position of Secret Service Director to replace retiring Director David Gentry (Lance Reddick). An assassination attempt occurs during the President's fishing trip and his security detail is killed by armed drones, leaving only himself and Banning the sole survivors. Banning is arrested by FBI Agent Helen Thompson (Jada Pinkett Smith) after finding substantial evidence that Banning is responsible for the attack. After escaping from his captors Banning must evade his own agency and the FBI to find the real threat to the President. To save the country from imminent danger he must turn to unlikely allies and uncover the truth to clear his name.
This movie was all over the place but it was good. I think i liked it better than the last one which was London Has Fallen, but not as much as the original movie Olympus Has Fallen. It was refreshing to see Gerard Butler's character Mike Banning humanized a bit in this film. The plot was a little predictable but I enjoyed the whole man on the run while trying to still do his job angle to it. Like I said the movie was kind of all over the place and didn't have the action scenes as tight as in the other films especially in the middle of the movie but it didn't matter too much overall. Fairly entertaining, it was a good movie to end the summer action movies off with. I give it a 7/10.
Undergoing training at a private military facility, Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) finds himself hiding the fact that he's suffering from migraines, insomnia and self-medicating to deal with severe back pain. He is nominated by the President Alan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman), for the position of Secret Service Director to replace retiring Director David Gentry (Lance Reddick). An assassination attempt occurs during the President's fishing trip and his security detail is killed by armed drones, leaving only himself and Banning the sole survivors. Banning is arrested by FBI Agent Helen Thompson (Jada Pinkett Smith) after finding substantial evidence that Banning is responsible for the attack. After escaping from his captors Banning must evade his own agency and the FBI to find the real threat to the President. To save the country from imminent danger he must turn to unlikely allies and uncover the truth to clear his name.
This movie was all over the place but it was good. I think i liked it better than the last one which was London Has Fallen, but not as much as the original movie Olympus Has Fallen. It was refreshing to see Gerard Butler's character Mike Banning humanized a bit in this film. The plot was a little predictable but I enjoyed the whole man on the run while trying to still do his job angle to it. Like I said the movie was kind of all over the place and didn't have the action scenes as tight as in the other films especially in the middle of the movie but it didn't matter too much overall. Fairly entertaining, it was a good movie to end the summer action movies off with. I give it a 7/10.