Search

Search only in certain items:

40x40

Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies

Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)  
Lords of Chaos (2018)
Lords of Chaos (2018)
2018 | Drama
I saw one trailer for this and at that point I instantly assumed that it wouldn't show at my local Cineworld, but it did, with a surprising amount of showings. The gentleman and I who attended this particular screening really did not look like your typical black metal fans, but then it's always the quiet ones...

In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.

Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.

I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.

Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.

The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.

The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.

While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.

What you should do

This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.

Movie thing you wish you could take home

Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
  
Joker (2019)
Joker (2019)
2019 | Crime, Drama
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.

I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.

• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.

• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.

• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.

• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.

• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.

• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?

So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.

Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.

As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.

I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.

When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.

What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.


Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.

Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
  
40x40

Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)

 
Easy Rider (1969)
Easy Rider (1969)
1969 | Action, Drama

"I begin and end with road-trip movies. Easy Rider was a cultural phenomenon. It depicted the rise of hippie culture, condemned the establishment, harkened back to a mythical America that was being shot in the head metaphorically, and many people, including my own father, so identified with the main characters, Captain America and Billy, that they sought to emulate the values not only of the film but of the filmmakers, Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda. I wrote about the transformative power Easy Rider had in my life in my book, I Blame Dennis Hopper, and let me tell you, the first time I saw it on TV, all cut up, I thought: This is the movie that ruined our lives and turned us into dirty hippies? I just didn’t get it. The years went by; I became an actress, worked with Dennis Hopper, then Peter Fonda, deemed them both mystics, and thought: Yeah, I need to reinvestigate this film. So cue up the sixties soundtrack: Get your motor running . . . Easy Rider is mainly a road-trip movie about two alienated and rootless hippie bikers who travel on their choppers to make a drug deal, but somewhere along the broken road, Hopper and Fonda reveal themselves in an existential way. For instance, there’s a touching bit of autobiographical improv about the death of Fonda’s mother that Hopper apparently made him shoot. Watching Easy Rider, you never forget that Peter Fonda is the son of Henry Fonda—and that’s pretty existential too! It’s like he’s cinematically rebelling against the very American roles his father played—especially Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath. Which, if you think about it, is also a road-trip movie about a broken America. Apparently, Henry Fonda came out of Easy Rider not understanding any of it. I’ve always loved the idea that while Peter was shooting Easy Rider and changing the world, Henry was shooting Yours, Mine and Ours, a Hollywood generation-gap movie, with Lucille Ball. Hopper had his finger on the pulse of the times when he made this film, and not just the peace movement. He came out of the studio system, acting in films like Giant and Rebel Without a Cause, and starred in countless television shows. His work as a director and an actor has been overshadowed by his wild lifestyle, and that’s a shame. Two films you should check out: Hoosiers, in which Hopper acted, and Colors, which he directed. Hopper literally began the independent film movement with this film. He probably also cursed us with hundreds of road-trip movies too—but here is the original. The tagline of Easy Rider was “A man went looking for America. And couldn’t find it anywhere . . .,” and that message still resonates, especially in the character of George Hanson, played so beautifully by Jack Nicholson. Let’s just say the casting of Nicholson as an alcoholic ACLU lawyer was a stroke of luck and genius. His performance opposite Hopper and Fonda, maybe because they were all buddies, is the heart of the film. Every road movie owes a debt to this scene, because every road movie since then seems to have a bonding scene like it, where all the characters reveal their inner hopes, fears, and dreams over a joint or two. They sit around the campfire smoking pot, and Hopper rationalizes that people hate him because he has long hair and is a hippie. Nicholson says, no, they hate you because you’re free. Cut to the thousands of folks who saw this film, quit their jobs, and became hippies! Easy Rider represented a time when freedom meant freedom from material things, freedom from driving in six lanes of traffic to work twelve hours a day at a job you hate. Freedom in 1969 was the land, the land of the free and the brave. Freedom was peace and love. The word freedom has been co-opted. Today, freedom means freedom to be selfish, freedom to carry guns. Freedom to hurt the land and its inhabitants for the sake of commerce. Easy Rider reminds us how far we have strayed from that journey."

Source
  
Superman: Action Comics - The Oz Effect
Superman: Action Comics - The Oz Effect
Dan Jurgens | 2018 | Comics & Graphic Novels, Crime, Mystery
6
7.0 (2 Ratings)
Book Rating
I passed on "The Oz Effect" when it first ran in ACTION COMICS back in 2017. The whole "Rebirth" thing intrigued me, but some of the stuff like the Flash/Batman crossover "The Button", just left me cold and bordering on disinterest. When I saw the identity reveal as to the story arc's antagonist, I felt frustrated and disappointing, feeling like "#Facepalm Didn't we do something like this already?!".

Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!

The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.

The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!

Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!

As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!

The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!

What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.

This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.

So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.

And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!

I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
  
Halloween (2018)
Halloween (2018)
2018 | Horror
“He’s waited for me; I’ve waited for him”.
A blood-soaked history.
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.

The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.

Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.

The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.

As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.

Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.

The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.

Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!

The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.

The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.

Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.

Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.

One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
  
The Mummy (2017)
The Mummy (2017)
2017 | Action, Adventure
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.

But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.

And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.

Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.

The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.

Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
  
40x40

Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies

Jul 19, 2017 (Updated Apr 16, 2021)  
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
2016 | Action, Sci-Fi
80's setting (2 more)
Quicksilver
Oscar Isaacs
Inconsistent Tone (0 more)
Mutants Have Mankind Divided
This movie has had the most mixed reaction that I have seen since Batman V Superman, however I do objectively believe that X Men is a better movie and to be honest I don’t understand the mixed response Apocalypse has gotten. The year is 1983, 10 years after the last x men movie, Days Of Future Past (as in the kind of 10 years where no one ages a day,) and we know that it is 1983 because some of the young mutants go and see Return Of The Jedi in the cinema. The hairstyles and fashion statements are suitably 80’s, which is an appropriate motif to choose as it adds a more comic book feel to the movie and forces it to stick to a brighter colour pallet than some of the previous X men outings. Another positive is the return of Quicksilver, who has another awesome slow motion scene, which possibly isn’t as well choreographed as the one in DOFP, but is definitely grander in scale. While the design of Apocalypse in this movie has been heavily criticised, I didn’t feel that it took me out of the movie and I felt that Oscar Isaacs’ portrayal of the ancient mutant is another great turn by the actor and proves yet again how diverse and chameleon like he really is. The one downside of his character is that he has been significantly nerfed in terms of his powers here. He does feel powerful, but never overwhelmingly so and when the final confrontation does take place, it feels like he is holding back. This could be explained in a contrived manner by saying that he doesn’t want to kill mutants, because they are all his children, but if the success of his plan depends on it then he shouldn’t even hesitate, he should just wipe all the X Men out in an instant like we know he can.

The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.

Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.

Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.
  
Okja (2017)
Okja (2017)
2017 | Adventure, Fantasy, Sci-Fi
Solid Film
In their efforts to be cost efficient and profitable, the Mirando Corporation creates a breed of "super pigs" that will be able to feed more homes per pig. One pig in particular, Okja, is being raised by little Mija (Seo-hyeon Ahn) in the mountains of South Korea. When the Mirando Corporation come to claim what is theirs, Mija will stop at nothing to get her best friend back.

There is a lot to like about this film, but one primary thing bothered me overall. At one point, Okja takes an extremely dark turn that I was neither ready for nor did I think was absolutely necessary. People that have seen the film probably know exactly which part I'm referring to. It was merely a piece of an overall delightful puzzle that just didn't match.

Solid acting performances abound in the film and it's not just the big names carrying their weight. Tilda Swinton and Jake Gyllenhaal (almost spelled his name right on the first try!) were really in tune with their respective zany characters. As a viewer the two show you that they are more than mere cardboard antagonists, but rather there were layers and levels to their characters that left you with insight. Of course that can't be pulled off without a solid actor/actress behind the helm. Ahn's performance as Mija was stellar. To be able to exemplify such strength and weakness in the same role takes real talent. My personal favorite of them all was Kim's role played by Choi Woo-Shik. His humor is subtle yet sidesplitting. He accomplishes a lot in the small amount of time he's on screen.

This films captures your attention both in its originality and a consistently entertaining pace. Even during the scenes with heavy dialogue, the film managed to hold on to its unique feel that captured my attention in the first place. Prepare to run the gauntlet of emotions as it goes from funny to heartbreaking to heartwarming to just plain sad at times. So glad I saw what I think has the potential to become a cult classic. I give it an 84.
  
The Weight of This World
The Weight of This World
David Joy | 2017 | Fiction & Poetry
10
10.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
I received an ARC from FirstToRead for an unbiased review of THE WEIGHT OF THE WORLD.

It's particularly hard to explain the details of this book without spoilers, beyond the blurb already posted about it: "A combat veteran returned from war, Thad Broom can’t leave the hardened world of Afghanistan behind, nor can he forgive himself for what he saw there. His mother, April, is haunted by her own demons, a secret trauma she has carried for years. Between them is Aiden McCall, loyal to both but unable to hold them together. Connected by bonds of circumstance and duty, friendship and love, these three lives are blown apart when Aiden and Thad witness the accidental death of their drug dealer and a riot of dope and cash drops in their laps. On a meth-fueled journey to nowhere, they will either find the grit to overcome the darkness or be consumed by it."

I don't entirely think I knew what I was getting myself into reading the book, which was well written but a little too graphic for me. I think in referring others to it, I will consider those who handle certain scenarios well, versus those who do not (for example, I'm not exactly rushing out to recommend this to any of my friends who've returned home from war and are dealing with PTSD).

The development of the three main characters and the intensity of their bonds and loyalty, despite all the ways they continued to fail one another, were a true depiction of human spirit. How we can love someone so much that we never mean to fail them, yet we can never do fully right by them.

I loved the epilogue but not the ending...if that makes sense (I'm afraid to say much for fear of spoilers). Part of me wanted so desperately for Aiden, Thad and April to all find their way away from Little Canada, alone or together, having beaten all their demons. Part of me, though, is realistic enough to know that is not how life works.

I will absolutely be hunting for other books by David Joy having read this one. So glad I took the time and stuck out the scenes that were hard to stomach.
  
The Princess Diarist
The Princess Diarist
Carrie Fisher | 2017 | Biography
10
7.5 (22 Ratings)
Book Rating
This is Carrie Fisher's memoir of her time during the filming of Star Wars Episode IV, including entries from the diaries she kept during that time that she recently discovered. I think this was the first time that Fisher really talked about her relationship with Leia, and what Leia has offered to her over the years. She also talks about her fans, and how much they mean to her and everything about the ending of the book was so much more heartbreaking given the circumstances. I was genuinely surprised by how touching her closing chapters were, in regards to her relationship with Leia and the Star Wars community as a whole.

It was a little surreal reading this so soon after both her death and her mother's, as she talks frequently about her mother in the book, as well as mentioning a couple of times, in an offhand manner, how she would like to be remembered for certain events. Perhaps it was too soon for me after her death. Not that I was ever necessarily a huge Carrie Fisher fan, but I've certainly been a Star Wars fan my whole life (I saw the original Star Wars when it was released - I was 3), so while there was never necessarily a Carrie Fisher in a my life, there has always been a Princess Leia, and it seemed to hit home a little for me. It also made me unreasonably angry that Carrie Fisher died; in a year of so many celebrity deaths, it seemed like just another death to some, but it made me angry because she overcame so much, and still had so much to do and offer to the world. So, yeah - maybe I should have put a little time in between her death and reading this book, knowing it was her last, but it seemed like the thing to do at the time. It is typically funny in that Carrie Fisher way, but equally sad given the circumstances. I fairly certain, however, that again, in that typically funny Carrie Fisher way, she would have found some way to turn her death into an appropriate epilogue to this book.