Search
Search results
Dana (24 KP) rated The Winner's Curse (The Winner's Trilogy, #1) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
This was a very interesting concept for a book series. The nations and the struggle between them was based on the Greco-Roman time period when Rome was conquering most of Europe and the Mediterranean. Many of the ties to both appearance and even some of the cultures of these two rival nations were scattered throughout the first book.
I have got to say, I really enjoyed this book. It was a very quick read, something I appreciate as I am attempting to read 27 books in about two and a half months. The characters were very compelling, especially when I hated them. I obviously loved the two main characters, Kestrel and Arin, Kestrel's best friend, Jess, and her brother, Ronan. Even though I hated Irex (even his name is grating) I was intrigued by him and his motivations behind everything he did.
I loved how Kestrel was such a schemer. A lot of the time in YA books with female protagonists, if she is even slightly good at battle plans, she is passed off as being arrogant or is completely ignored by her male counterparts forcing her to execute her plan behind the scenes and be scolded for the rash behavior afterwards. Not in this book. No, Kestrel is actually praised for her tactical mind, something I think anyone with this skill should get. It was refreshing to see other characters lifting a female character up in her strengths instead of downplaying them, forcing her to use them for their own gain, or taking credit for it themselves. Other males in YA books, take note of this!! (Also, I love how badass she is at Bite and Sting. I want that game to be real and learn how to be just as awesome at it!!)
The relationships between the characters were well developed, but I think they could still use improvement. I wanted to know the motivations behind each of the relationships, especially between Kestrel and Ronan. Yes, he likes her, but why and for how long? And we all know about Irex, but why is he like that? Plus, how did Jess and Kestrel become friends?
I enjoyed how everything played out in the plot and was setting up for the next books without being only about world building and plot set up. It had a life of its own.
Overall, I really liked the book and I can't wait to pick up the next two!
I have got to say, I really enjoyed this book. It was a very quick read, something I appreciate as I am attempting to read 27 books in about two and a half months. The characters were very compelling, especially when I hated them. I obviously loved the two main characters, Kestrel and Arin, Kestrel's best friend, Jess, and her brother, Ronan. Even though I hated Irex (even his name is grating) I was intrigued by him and his motivations behind everything he did.
I loved how Kestrel was such a schemer. A lot of the time in YA books with female protagonists, if she is even slightly good at battle plans, she is passed off as being arrogant or is completely ignored by her male counterparts forcing her to execute her plan behind the scenes and be scolded for the rash behavior afterwards. Not in this book. No, Kestrel is actually praised for her tactical mind, something I think anyone with this skill should get. It was refreshing to see other characters lifting a female character up in her strengths instead of downplaying them, forcing her to use them for their own gain, or taking credit for it themselves. Other males in YA books, take note of this!! (Also, I love how badass she is at Bite and Sting. I want that game to be real and learn how to be just as awesome at it!!)
The relationships between the characters were well developed, but I think they could still use improvement. I wanted to know the motivations behind each of the relationships, especially between Kestrel and Ronan. Yes, he likes her, but why and for how long? And we all know about Irex, but why is he like that? Plus, how did Jess and Kestrel become friends?
I enjoyed how everything played out in the plot and was setting up for the next books without being only about world building and plot set up. It had a life of its own.
Overall, I really liked the book and I can't wait to pick up the next two!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When we last saw John Wick (Keanue Reeves), the former elite assassin had just completed a bloody and brutal mission of revenge after being pulled
back into a world he risked everything to leave behind. In “John Wick: Chapter 2”, the film picks up with Wick tying off some loose ends from the
first film and then returning to his home to finally find peace and leave his old life behind forever.
Sadly, a marker from his past is called in and John is not so subtly reminded of the consequences of failing to repay a marker, and is tasked with a no win situation.
John soon finds himself in Rome where he must eliminate a person of position despite having no real reason to do so other than to repay his debt. The fact that he knows his target is an even more of a challenge for him to contend with.
As if this was not bad enough, John upon completing his task is soon double crossed and finds that a bounty of 7 million dollars has been placed on him, and he know has every assassin in the greater New York area gunning for him.
The film maintains the frantic and breathlessly intense and sustained combat of the first film without ever being stale or repetitive. Guns, knives, and other implements all became part of a symphony of violence and destruction that is captivating to watch.
The film also goes deeper into the characters around John and the world in which he lives such as Winston (Ian McShane), who runs the Continental Hotel where rules for conduct are set, and those in John’s line of work find refuge and supplies for their “work”.
The film is one of the rare sequels that is as good if not better than the original and sets up a third outing very well. Reeves owns the character and you can sense his conflict as one who wants to leave his past behind but who cannot escape his past.
The very physical and demanding nature of the part shows the passion he has for the character and watching the fury and smoothness of how he dispatches his foes really underscores that this is pretty much everything you would want in an action film and more.
The very satisfying action sequences and performances combine well to make a compelling, exciting, and highly entertaining adrenaline rush, and I cannot wait to see what they come up with for the next outing.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/09/john-wick-chapter-2/
back into a world he risked everything to leave behind. In “John Wick: Chapter 2”, the film picks up with Wick tying off some loose ends from the
first film and then returning to his home to finally find peace and leave his old life behind forever.
Sadly, a marker from his past is called in and John is not so subtly reminded of the consequences of failing to repay a marker, and is tasked with a no win situation.
John soon finds himself in Rome where he must eliminate a person of position despite having no real reason to do so other than to repay his debt. The fact that he knows his target is an even more of a challenge for him to contend with.
As if this was not bad enough, John upon completing his task is soon double crossed and finds that a bounty of 7 million dollars has been placed on him, and he know has every assassin in the greater New York area gunning for him.
The film maintains the frantic and breathlessly intense and sustained combat of the first film without ever being stale or repetitive. Guns, knives, and other implements all became part of a symphony of violence and destruction that is captivating to watch.
The film also goes deeper into the characters around John and the world in which he lives such as Winston (Ian McShane), who runs the Continental Hotel where rules for conduct are set, and those in John’s line of work find refuge and supplies for their “work”.
The film is one of the rare sequels that is as good if not better than the original and sets up a third outing very well. Reeves owns the character and you can sense his conflict as one who wants to leave his past behind but who cannot escape his past.
The very physical and demanding nature of the part shows the passion he has for the character and watching the fury and smoothness of how he dispatches his foes really underscores that this is pretty much everything you would want in an action film and more.
The very satisfying action sequences and performances combine well to make a compelling, exciting, and highly entertaining adrenaline rush, and I cannot wait to see what they come up with for the next outing.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/09/john-wick-chapter-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fast X (2023) in Movies
May 17, 2023
Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) is enjoying the good life as a husband and a
father and has found himself happy with his life but admits that he
worries about losing the ones he loves. In “FastX” which is the latest
film in the long-running series; the sins of the past are about to return
to wreak revenge upon Dominic and his crew.
Linking the events of the sixth film in the series, the crew find
themselves setup and framed after an extended and intense action sequence
in Rome and are on the run from the very agency they have been working
for.
The enigmatic and flamboyant Dante (Jason Mom); always seems to be
one step ahead of the team which finds themselves scattered at various
locations around the world which gives them plenty of time to fight,
drive, tech, and plan their next step in what is increasingly becoming a
deadly game from which there seems to be no way to survive.
The film has a very large cast and it is great to see the faces old and new
pop in and out of the film while they focus on the core characters. The
film does have some slow segments between the action but this is done to
establish new characters and develop the family relationships between
others as a family is a large theme of the series.
This is both a good and bad thing as it is nice to see so many characters
but some have little more than a brief cameo and others get more time than
is necessary. With so many moving parts and locations; the film does
deliver what fans will expect as the creators know the formula that has
made the series such a success and make sure that the over-the-top,
absurd, bombastic, adrenaline ride of the series remains even though it
requires the audience to throw logic and reason out the window and just go
along with the intense stunts and action sequences.
The film sets up the planned next film well and there are some interesting
side stories that I am curious to see how they will be developed in the
next film which had been reported to be the finale of the series before
spin-offs would carry the franchise forward.
It has been reported that Universal has asked for a twelfth film to make
the finale a trilogy and based on the latest outing, there is still enough
gas in the tank to give fans a flawed yet enjoyable summer Popcorn movie.
3.5 stars out of 5
father and has found himself happy with his life but admits that he
worries about losing the ones he loves. In “FastX” which is the latest
film in the long-running series; the sins of the past are about to return
to wreak revenge upon Dominic and his crew.
Linking the events of the sixth film in the series, the crew find
themselves setup and framed after an extended and intense action sequence
in Rome and are on the run from the very agency they have been working
for.
The enigmatic and flamboyant Dante (Jason Mom); always seems to be
one step ahead of the team which finds themselves scattered at various
locations around the world which gives them plenty of time to fight,
drive, tech, and plan their next step in what is increasingly becoming a
deadly game from which there seems to be no way to survive.
The film has a very large cast and it is great to see the faces old and new
pop in and out of the film while they focus on the core characters. The
film does have some slow segments between the action but this is done to
establish new characters and develop the family relationships between
others as a family is a large theme of the series.
This is both a good and bad thing as it is nice to see so many characters
but some have little more than a brief cameo and others get more time than
is necessary. With so many moving parts and locations; the film does
deliver what fans will expect as the creators know the formula that has
made the series such a success and make sure that the over-the-top,
absurd, bombastic, adrenaline ride of the series remains even though it
requires the audience to throw logic and reason out the window and just go
along with the intense stunts and action sequences.
The film sets up the planned next film well and there are some interesting
side stories that I am curious to see how they will be developed in the
next film which had been reported to be the finale of the series before
spin-offs would carry the franchise forward.
It has been reported that Universal has asked for a twelfth film to make
the finale a trilogy and based on the latest outing, there is still enough
gas in the tank to give fans a flawed yet enjoyable summer Popcorn movie.
3.5 stars out of 5
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Feb 11, 2019
Right away this book captures my attention with a quick introduction to Katniss's survival skills followed by the District 12 Hunger Games lottery, a grim holiday that nobody wants to celebrate, but is still mandatory. It does not take long for the reader to feel sympathetic towards Katniss and the hardship she struggles with everyday just to survive.
Every detail leading up to the actual event of the Hunger Games has a surreal feel, as Katniss is primped and paraded like a beauty pageant contestant, as if everyone is ignoring the fact that these are children, with all but one facing imminent death. This is reality television meets the ancient gladiator games of Rome, combined with the sick irony of using a nation's most precious commodity -- its children. As a mother of three, I can not even fathom living in a country that tolerated this year after year. These Hunger Games are the country's way of preventing rebellion in its citizens through fear, brainwashing, and desensitization, as it is mandatory for every citizen to watch. In some districts, this is so successful that children are routinely trained specifically for the Hunger Games, volunteering to face murder and death for a chance at fame and fortune.
The love triangle is obvious early on, though the conflict can't come into play until the second book in the series. Peeta is the one in the spotlight, the one that humanizes Katniss for the viewers and makes her likable due to his own romantic feelings for her. Unfortunately, Katniss is too busy staying alive to be certain of her true feelings, even though she can pretend well enough to convince even Peeta. Peeta is self-sacrificing, while Katniss is observant and resourceful. Katniss is able to avoid becoming a cold-hearted murderer only because of Peeta's presence.
Regarding the actual Game, those that run it operate to keep the entertainment value up, adding to the danger of the contestants still alive, handing out gifts to give one an edge over another, forcing contestants into battle to increase bloodshed and drama, and generally treating the twenty-four as actors and actresses in any other fictional television drama. What Katniss keeps returning to is how "normal" these people of the Capitol see of the deaths of these children. It occurred to me while reading this that it would be better to be one of those that died in the Games, rather than live with being the monster responsible for the deaths of twenty-three other children purely for the entertainment of the shallow and self-absorbed.
This book is both shocking and heart-rending, and I look forward to the next installment, Catching Fire.
Every detail leading up to the actual event of the Hunger Games has a surreal feel, as Katniss is primped and paraded like a beauty pageant contestant, as if everyone is ignoring the fact that these are children, with all but one facing imminent death. This is reality television meets the ancient gladiator games of Rome, combined with the sick irony of using a nation's most precious commodity -- its children. As a mother of three, I can not even fathom living in a country that tolerated this year after year. These Hunger Games are the country's way of preventing rebellion in its citizens through fear, brainwashing, and desensitization, as it is mandatory for every citizen to watch. In some districts, this is so successful that children are routinely trained specifically for the Hunger Games, volunteering to face murder and death for a chance at fame and fortune.
The love triangle is obvious early on, though the conflict can't come into play until the second book in the series. Peeta is the one in the spotlight, the one that humanizes Katniss for the viewers and makes her likable due to his own romantic feelings for her. Unfortunately, Katniss is too busy staying alive to be certain of her true feelings, even though she can pretend well enough to convince even Peeta. Peeta is self-sacrificing, while Katniss is observant and resourceful. Katniss is able to avoid becoming a cold-hearted murderer only because of Peeta's presence.
Regarding the actual Game, those that run it operate to keep the entertainment value up, adding to the danger of the contestants still alive, handing out gifts to give one an edge over another, forcing contestants into battle to increase bloodshed and drama, and generally treating the twenty-four as actors and actresses in any other fictional television drama. What Katniss keeps returning to is how "normal" these people of the Capitol see of the deaths of these children. It occurred to me while reading this that it would be better to be one of those that died in the Games, rather than live with being the monster responsible for the deaths of twenty-three other children purely for the entertainment of the shallow and self-absorbed.
This book is both shocking and heart-rending, and I look forward to the next installment, Catching Fire.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Assassin's Creed: Renaissance in Books
May 15, 2017
Descriptive writing (2 more)
Delving deeper into the story
Reading about plot points that weren't told until the sequel game
I am Ezio Auditore da Firenze. And like my father before me I am an Assassin...
The story of the Assassin from Italy, who we followed for 3 of the 13 console games (9 in the main series, 4 other games on Xbox - 3 of which are the Assassins Creed Chronicles, and 1 being Assassin's Creed: Liberation). The story of Ezio Auditore is one of vengeance, and discovery.
We begin with the story following his father however, another great installment in this series that gives us more back story that you can only find fragments of within the game and other media such as the short film Assassin's Creed Lineage. Ezio's story begins shortly after, when his father and brothers are killed, due to a betrayal, leaving behind Ezio, his mother and his sister. Together they flee the city and Ezio's story begins to unfold as he learns more about his father's secret, and the order to which his father and their ancestors belonged to. The Assassins.
Set in the beautiful time of Renaissance Italy, we follow Ezio as he travels to and from multiple cities, including his home, Florence, but also to the famous cities of Venice, Tuscany, and Rome. Each city introduces him to new friends, new enemies and more secrets begin to reveal themselves to Ezio which allow the character to become wiser and more developed over the years.
Oliver Bowden let's his readers delve far deeper into the stories of the characters than the games. The games are enjoyed more so for their game play and the freedom of your actions as you run around these historical landscapes. The books that Bowden has written, let us enjoy the adventure and the twists and turns of each story, told to us as though we were in the animus ourselves watching over Ezio but with no control over what happens to him.
If you play the games, then you know that each video game, in each of the settings, you will meet a historical figure. One thing that makes the franchise so brilliant is that the historical settings, and some of the events that takes place are historically accurate to the dates they happen. For example in the first Assassin's Creed, you meet King Richard the Lionheart, during the crusades in Jerusalem. In Assassin's Creed 2, and this novel, we are introduced to none other than the famous painter and inventor, Leonardo Da Vinci. Yes, THAT Leonardo Da Vinci, the same man that painted some of the world's most famous works of art such as The Mona Lisa.
As always Bowden's descriptive writing lets the reader truly feel the events unfold within our minds, and experience everything that the characters experience. The great joy of reading a book, is the imagination it can place into one's mind. As said before in my review on The Secret Crusade, the story is familiar and yet there are unfamiliar moments, that make the familiar story make more sense, and gives the readers and video game players a brand new experience.
We begin with the story following his father however, another great installment in this series that gives us more back story that you can only find fragments of within the game and other media such as the short film Assassin's Creed Lineage. Ezio's story begins shortly after, when his father and brothers are killed, due to a betrayal, leaving behind Ezio, his mother and his sister. Together they flee the city and Ezio's story begins to unfold as he learns more about his father's secret, and the order to which his father and their ancestors belonged to. The Assassins.
Set in the beautiful time of Renaissance Italy, we follow Ezio as he travels to and from multiple cities, including his home, Florence, but also to the famous cities of Venice, Tuscany, and Rome. Each city introduces him to new friends, new enemies and more secrets begin to reveal themselves to Ezio which allow the character to become wiser and more developed over the years.
Oliver Bowden let's his readers delve far deeper into the stories of the characters than the games. The games are enjoyed more so for their game play and the freedom of your actions as you run around these historical landscapes. The books that Bowden has written, let us enjoy the adventure and the twists and turns of each story, told to us as though we were in the animus ourselves watching over Ezio but with no control over what happens to him.
If you play the games, then you know that each video game, in each of the settings, you will meet a historical figure. One thing that makes the franchise so brilliant is that the historical settings, and some of the events that takes place are historically accurate to the dates they happen. For example in the first Assassin's Creed, you meet King Richard the Lionheart, during the crusades in Jerusalem. In Assassin's Creed 2, and this novel, we are introduced to none other than the famous painter and inventor, Leonardo Da Vinci. Yes, THAT Leonardo Da Vinci, the same man that painted some of the world's most famous works of art such as The Mona Lisa.
As always Bowden's descriptive writing lets the reader truly feel the events unfold within our minds, and experience everything that the characters experience. The great joy of reading a book, is the imagination it can place into one's mind. As said before in my review on The Secret Crusade, the story is familiar and yet there are unfamiliar moments, that make the familiar story make more sense, and gives the readers and video game players a brand new experience.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Fashion Faux pas
It pains me to say it, but Ben Stiller hasn’t really been relevant for quite some time. His last film, the final movie in the Night at the Museum franchise struggled with critics and audiences alike.
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Book of Fire in Books
Mar 7, 2020
I was provided a copy of this book via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review
Combining dystopia and ancient history, Michelle Kenney's debut series Book of Fire slots nicely into the list of best young adult science-fiction. Set in the not so distant future, the world has been destroyed and human life can only be sustained within a specially designed lifedome - at least that is what everyone living inside has been told. The protagonist, Talia, begs to differ, having lived in secret on the outside all her life.
A rogue test missile exploded with cataclysmic effect on 3rd November 2025, leaving cities in ruins. Whilst most people ran to the lifedome, Talia's grandfather and a few others ran in the opposite direction. For years, they have lived in the relative safety of Arafel, whose existence has been kept hidden from the majority of the people living in the dome.
Unfortunately, the leader of the lifedome is one of the few who knows of their existence and wishes to eradicate them and Talia's peaceful life is suddenly destroyed when her grandfather and her twin brother Eli are captured by soldiers. Determined to rescue them, Talia and her friend Max break into the dome but what they discover makes them even more concerned about the life of not just their families but all the remaining humans.
Obsessed with Ancient Rome, the lifedome's leader Octavia has created a replica of the historical city, going as far as to genetically produce strong and powerful gladiators. Yet, the more Talia sees of the lifedome - Pantheon - the more she realises it is not just extra-strong humans that Octavia has been experimenting with. Hidden in the depth of the dome are mythological creatures made from a mix of human and animal parts; creatures that should not exist, however, they all have various defects.
Talia soon learns that her grandfather was kidnapped for a reason: he knows the secret to create the perfect DNA for these creatures and, in turn, Talia unwittingly knows it too.
Initially, all Talia wanted was her grandfather and brother back but now she is part of something much bigger and must choose between her family, self-preservation and the rest of the human race. On top of that, she begins to fall for a pseudo-Roman Gladiator. Could it get any more complicated?
Michelle Kenney has created a world where the monsters turn out to be the heroes and the humans in charge, the monsters. Reading this at the time of the coronavirus makes the apocalyptic situation a little too close for comfort but it provides a strong message not to mess with things that no longer exist. Imperfection is a common by-product of life's recover - if only Octavia could have accepted that.
Book of Fire is the first in a promising trilogy that will transport you into a world of fantasy, danger, wonderful creatures and a hint of reality. For those who love ancient history and dystopian fiction will thoroughly enjoy this series.
Combining dystopia and ancient history, Michelle Kenney's debut series Book of Fire slots nicely into the list of best young adult science-fiction. Set in the not so distant future, the world has been destroyed and human life can only be sustained within a specially designed lifedome - at least that is what everyone living inside has been told. The protagonist, Talia, begs to differ, having lived in secret on the outside all her life.
A rogue test missile exploded with cataclysmic effect on 3rd November 2025, leaving cities in ruins. Whilst most people ran to the lifedome, Talia's grandfather and a few others ran in the opposite direction. For years, they have lived in the relative safety of Arafel, whose existence has been kept hidden from the majority of the people living in the dome.
Unfortunately, the leader of the lifedome is one of the few who knows of their existence and wishes to eradicate them and Talia's peaceful life is suddenly destroyed when her grandfather and her twin brother Eli are captured by soldiers. Determined to rescue them, Talia and her friend Max break into the dome but what they discover makes them even more concerned about the life of not just their families but all the remaining humans.
Obsessed with Ancient Rome, the lifedome's leader Octavia has created a replica of the historical city, going as far as to genetically produce strong and powerful gladiators. Yet, the more Talia sees of the lifedome - Pantheon - the more she realises it is not just extra-strong humans that Octavia has been experimenting with. Hidden in the depth of the dome are mythological creatures made from a mix of human and animal parts; creatures that should not exist, however, they all have various defects.
Talia soon learns that her grandfather was kidnapped for a reason: he knows the secret to create the perfect DNA for these creatures and, in turn, Talia unwittingly knows it too.
Initially, all Talia wanted was her grandfather and brother back but now she is part of something much bigger and must choose between her family, self-preservation and the rest of the human race. On top of that, she begins to fall for a pseudo-Roman Gladiator. Could it get any more complicated?
Michelle Kenney has created a world where the monsters turn out to be the heroes and the humans in charge, the monsters. Reading this at the time of the coronavirus makes the apocalyptic situation a little too close for comfort but it provides a strong message not to mess with things that no longer exist. Imperfection is a common by-product of life's recover - if only Octavia could have accepted that.
Book of Fire is the first in a promising trilogy that will transport you into a world of fantasy, danger, wonderful creatures and a hint of reality. For those who love ancient history and dystopian fiction will thoroughly enjoy this series.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/