Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Greatest Love Story Ever Told in Books
Mar 12, 2019
Enjoyable book about two fun and interesting people.
In 2000, Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman meet on the set of a play. And the rest, as they say, is history. Their book is the story of their relationship--telling the story of how they met, from each's first impressions of one another and ranging across their courtship, wedding, work, and romance. The book covers such topics as family, past romances, religion, theater, and more.
I love both Megan and Nick immensely, so I was extremely excited when I saw they had a book coming out. My library copy arrived a day after publication, so I hadn't even had a chance to read many reviews. I didn't realize that most of the book is in interview/oral history-type format, so when you read the actual book, it just flips between Megan and Nick chatting back and forth. This takes a little getting used to and while I'm not a big audiobook fan (personal preference, my brain wanders too much), I think this is one that would be *fantastic* in audio form. I'm stalking our public library, waiting for them to get an audio copy for my wife. There are a few chapters that are written out, and I enjoyed those a bit more.
"To my way of thinking, it's an illustration of a relationship that the reader might find surprisingly normal. When all you have by which to judge a relationship are some grippingly cute Instagram videos, it might not occur to one that there's a lot of banal real life." ~Nick
So mostly, this book is just Nick and Megan talking. Because it's Nick and Megan, it's still pretty darn enjoyable. They cover certain topics in various chapters, so it can get a bit repetitive in places (we learn multiple times that Nick's family is salt of the earth and Megan's was, well, not). Still, it's fascinating to learn how the two met, a bit about their various careers (not as much as I would have liked--there are no funny Will and Grace or Parks and Recs anecdotes here), and a lot about their pasts.
The best part is that the book makes you smile--it's clearly apparent how much Nick and Megan love each other. I enjoyed learning more about both of them and how they spend their life together. Megan shares a fun Meryl Streep story, I loved her even more because apparently she's a hermit who loves to read (ME TOO MEGAN LET'S BE FRIENDS), and they are a couple who likes to hang out and do puzzles with their dogs. Life goals at its best.
"It's a wonder that I ever had a boyfriend in my entire life, because all I really like to do is read. I don't even know how I ever met another human."
"All I ever want to do is read. I only leave the house under duress."
Overall, this is fun book about two fun and interesting people. If you're an audiobook fan--even a little bit--I bet you'd enjoy it more in that format. If you like Megan or Nick, you'll find something to enjoy in this one. If you're looking for a chronological history with lots of tidbits about their careers, this isn't that book. But if you want some insight into Megan and Nick as people, this is a worthwhile read.
I love both Megan and Nick immensely, so I was extremely excited when I saw they had a book coming out. My library copy arrived a day after publication, so I hadn't even had a chance to read many reviews. I didn't realize that most of the book is in interview/oral history-type format, so when you read the actual book, it just flips between Megan and Nick chatting back and forth. This takes a little getting used to and while I'm not a big audiobook fan (personal preference, my brain wanders too much), I think this is one that would be *fantastic* in audio form. I'm stalking our public library, waiting for them to get an audio copy for my wife. There are a few chapters that are written out, and I enjoyed those a bit more.
"To my way of thinking, it's an illustration of a relationship that the reader might find surprisingly normal. When all you have by which to judge a relationship are some grippingly cute Instagram videos, it might not occur to one that there's a lot of banal real life." ~Nick
So mostly, this book is just Nick and Megan talking. Because it's Nick and Megan, it's still pretty darn enjoyable. They cover certain topics in various chapters, so it can get a bit repetitive in places (we learn multiple times that Nick's family is salt of the earth and Megan's was, well, not). Still, it's fascinating to learn how the two met, a bit about their various careers (not as much as I would have liked--there are no funny Will and Grace or Parks and Recs anecdotes here), and a lot about their pasts.
The best part is that the book makes you smile--it's clearly apparent how much Nick and Megan love each other. I enjoyed learning more about both of them and how they spend their life together. Megan shares a fun Meryl Streep story, I loved her even more because apparently she's a hermit who loves to read (ME TOO MEGAN LET'S BE FRIENDS), and they are a couple who likes to hang out and do puzzles with their dogs. Life goals at its best.
"It's a wonder that I ever had a boyfriend in my entire life, because all I really like to do is read. I don't even know how I ever met another human."
"All I ever want to do is read. I only leave the house under duress."
Overall, this is fun book about two fun and interesting people. If you're an audiobook fan--even a little bit--I bet you'd enjoy it more in that format. If you like Megan or Nick, you'll find something to enjoy in this one. If you're looking for a chronological history with lots of tidbits about their careers, this isn't that book. But if you want some insight into Megan and Nick as people, this is a worthwhile read.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Everybody Knows (Todos Lo Saben) (2018) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019 (Updated Mar 13, 2019)
Excellent acting from Bardem and (especially) Cruz
I have always liked, but not loved, the English language movies that Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem have been a part of. Part of the issue, I think, is that even though they are dynamic, charismatica and GOOD LOOKING screen presences that embody the very definitioni of the term "MOVIE STAR", they are working in a language that is not their native language, so something, I think, gets lost in translation. So, it was with some excitement that I checked out the Spanish language thriller EVERYBODY KNOWS (Spanish Title: TODOS LO SOBEN).
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated We Were Liars in Books
May 20, 2019
I feel like I went into We Were Liars by E. Lockhart blind. The synopsis intrigued me, but it didn't really give anything away. I just wish I had known more about this book because while it wasn't a bad read, it was just a mediocre read, and it didn't really have much to do with lying at all.
Cadence (Cady for short) is a Sinclair. She is part of a very rich family. In fact, they have their own island. She, her cousins Mirren and Johnny, and their friend Gat, nicknamed "The Liars," all vacation there with their families every summer. The Liars are all the same age, and during Summer 15 (when the Liars were 15 years old), Cady has an accident which leaves her with temporary amnesia. As she slowly gets her memory back, she learns some very harsh and painful truths about what really happened that summer.
We Were Liars never explains why the teens were nicknamed The Liars. I did find out that a deleted scene from the book explains how they got the name. I think this scene should have been left in since I feel it was relevant to the book. Most of the plot is about Cady looking back over her summers with the Liars and her summers since the eventful Summer 15. I will say that I never saw that major plot twist coming! When I read it, I was left with my mouth hanging open. I will say We Were Liars had one of the best plot twists I've read. Well done to E. Lockhart for that! This book does not have a cliffhanger ending, so all questions are answered and things are explained quite well.
The pacing is what lets this book down. I found it to be very slow. Most of the time, I was just reading about the boring lives of rich, privileged teenagers. Everything was so mundane. It just droned on and on for the most part. Luckily, the chapters are quite short, so I soldiered on. I'm glad I did because the section marked "The Truth" was really good! This is the section that contained the plot twist and when the book actually went at a decent pace. I just wish I didn't have to read through 75 percent of the book for the pacing to pick up.
While the pacing was slow, I did feel that the characters were well written. I enjoyed reading about everything from the perspective of Cady. I feel that she was the most interesting. I enjoyed watching her grow up throughout her teenage years and her feelings about everything. I also adored her feelings for Gat. I loved Gat's philosophy about everything. I felt he was very mature and wise beyond his years. Johnny and Mirren were also interesting in their own way. I felt that Johnny was the humorous one and Mirren the more serious out of the Liars. I enjoyed reading about how the Liars felt about their parents' and aunts' greed and how it was the downfall of everything.
Trigger warnings for We Were Liars include mentions of the phrase sexual intercourse (although there was no sex), kissing, arson, death, underage drinking, and greed.
Overall, We Were Liars is a decent read although it is a forgettable one. The plot twist is what really saved this book from being too boring. I would recommend We Were Liars by E. Lockhart simply for that amazing plot twist!
Cadence (Cady for short) is a Sinclair. She is part of a very rich family. In fact, they have their own island. She, her cousins Mirren and Johnny, and their friend Gat, nicknamed "The Liars," all vacation there with their families every summer. The Liars are all the same age, and during Summer 15 (when the Liars were 15 years old), Cady has an accident which leaves her with temporary amnesia. As she slowly gets her memory back, she learns some very harsh and painful truths about what really happened that summer.
We Were Liars never explains why the teens were nicknamed The Liars. I did find out that a deleted scene from the book explains how they got the name. I think this scene should have been left in since I feel it was relevant to the book. Most of the plot is about Cady looking back over her summers with the Liars and her summers since the eventful Summer 15. I will say that I never saw that major plot twist coming! When I read it, I was left with my mouth hanging open. I will say We Were Liars had one of the best plot twists I've read. Well done to E. Lockhart for that! This book does not have a cliffhanger ending, so all questions are answered and things are explained quite well.
The pacing is what lets this book down. I found it to be very slow. Most of the time, I was just reading about the boring lives of rich, privileged teenagers. Everything was so mundane. It just droned on and on for the most part. Luckily, the chapters are quite short, so I soldiered on. I'm glad I did because the section marked "The Truth" was really good! This is the section that contained the plot twist and when the book actually went at a decent pace. I just wish I didn't have to read through 75 percent of the book for the pacing to pick up.
While the pacing was slow, I did feel that the characters were well written. I enjoyed reading about everything from the perspective of Cady. I feel that she was the most interesting. I enjoyed watching her grow up throughout her teenage years and her feelings about everything. I also adored her feelings for Gat. I loved Gat's philosophy about everything. I felt he was very mature and wise beyond his years. Johnny and Mirren were also interesting in their own way. I felt that Johnny was the humorous one and Mirren the more serious out of the Liars. I enjoyed reading about how the Liars felt about their parents' and aunts' greed and how it was the downfall of everything.
Trigger warnings for We Were Liars include mentions of the phrase sexual intercourse (although there was no sex), kissing, arson, death, underage drinking, and greed.
Overall, We Were Liars is a decent read although it is a forgettable one. The plot twist is what really saved this book from being too boring. I would recommend We Were Liars by E. Lockhart simply for that amazing plot twist!
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Tattooist of Auschwitz in Books
May 29, 2019
“If you wake up in the morning, it is a good day.”
So I thought about it, and I’ve decided to write my review for this book. I’ve never read books that center around The Holocaust. I never thought I would, because I’ve seen several movies and just the sheer graphics of it alone made me sad. I know this was supposed to be based on a true story, but I went into it with the mindset that it wasn’t true, because most times, some of those stories are fabricated for drama purposes. I’ve read that even Heather Morris added some things to the story for that reason, so again, I saw it as just another story.
The story centers around Lale who is transferred to Auschwitz, but is given the job as a tattooist. From the descriptions, he has to use a really awful needle and has to press down hard enough for the numbers to be seen and never removed – a highly painful process that he has to perform even on children. Then one day, he tattoos a lady that catches his eye, Gita, and from then on he plans to love her and marry her WHEN they get out of Auschwitz.
Off the bat, something about the writing kind of bothered. I couldn’t quite pin point what it was. I read somewhere that this book was originally written as a screen play and I think that was it. To me, the style had a vagueness to it that made it feel like some parts I was reading something from an old story book from when I was in high school. I’m not saying that style was terrible. This particular writing style is not my favorite to read.
I liked the premise of the story. I can’t begin to imagine what it was truly like in those camps. I can’t comment on it either, but like I said, I also didn’t go into this book thinking it was all a true story about these two people. So, there were some bits of the story that I had a hard time believing, but then again, I’m not sure if it was a true part or a fabrication part.
All in all, the story wasn’t bad. I felt so horribly for Lale having to have that job, but he survived, and Gita. The remembering of their families and wondering if they are alive or dead struck me a bit. I know I’ve said this, but I can’t imagine that kind of pain. I feel horrible whenever Lale thought of his mother.
“His mother he can see perfectly. But how do you say goodbye to your mother? The person who gave you breath, who taught you how to live?”
You can’t, that’s the answer.
The book didn’t live up to the hype, in my opinion, but Morris wrote a nice and moving story in the end. I know there are some other stories like this. One of my Twitter friends recommend the Librarian of Auschwitz, so perhaps I will see about that book.
I don’t believe I’ll be seeking out the sequel to this book. I do hope it’s better than the first, but the story is still good.
So I thought about it, and I’ve decided to write my review for this book. I’ve never read books that center around The Holocaust. I never thought I would, because I’ve seen several movies and just the sheer graphics of it alone made me sad. I know this was supposed to be based on a true story, but I went into it with the mindset that it wasn’t true, because most times, some of those stories are fabricated for drama purposes. I’ve read that even Heather Morris added some things to the story for that reason, so again, I saw it as just another story.
The story centers around Lale who is transferred to Auschwitz, but is given the job as a tattooist. From the descriptions, he has to use a really awful needle and has to press down hard enough for the numbers to be seen and never removed – a highly painful process that he has to perform even on children. Then one day, he tattoos a lady that catches his eye, Gita, and from then on he plans to love her and marry her WHEN they get out of Auschwitz.
Off the bat, something about the writing kind of bothered. I couldn’t quite pin point what it was. I read somewhere that this book was originally written as a screen play and I think that was it. To me, the style had a vagueness to it that made it feel like some parts I was reading something from an old story book from when I was in high school. I’m not saying that style was terrible. This particular writing style is not my favorite to read.
I liked the premise of the story. I can’t begin to imagine what it was truly like in those camps. I can’t comment on it either, but like I said, I also didn’t go into this book thinking it was all a true story about these two people. So, there were some bits of the story that I had a hard time believing, but then again, I’m not sure if it was a true part or a fabrication part.
All in all, the story wasn’t bad. I felt so horribly for Lale having to have that job, but he survived, and Gita. The remembering of their families and wondering if they are alive or dead struck me a bit. I know I’ve said this, but I can’t imagine that kind of pain. I feel horrible whenever Lale thought of his mother.
“His mother he can see perfectly. But how do you say goodbye to your mother? The person who gave you breath, who taught you how to live?”
You can’t, that’s the answer.
The book didn’t live up to the hype, in my opinion, but Morris wrote a nice and moving story in the end. I know there are some other stories like this. One of my Twitter friends recommend the Librarian of Auschwitz, so perhaps I will see about that book.
I don’t believe I’ll be seeking out the sequel to this book. I do hope it’s better than the first, but the story is still good.
Debbiereadsbook (1487 KP) rated His Steady Heart in Books
May 30, 2019
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
I’m gonna jump straight in here, cos, well, because it’s my review and I can.
If you follow my reviews, you’ll know I have a particular dislike of several things.
First Person
Present Tense
Single Point of View.
So, when I started this book, and found it first person AND present tense, I got all ansty and twitchy and thought, nope, not doing it. THEN I realised it was single point of view, and my twitchiness went sky high and . . . .
bloody hell if I did not bloody LOVE this book!
Ashley or Buck, depending on who addresses him, was 22 years old when he first met Pippin and now, some 15 years (I was a bit unclear on that) later, he is still looking out for the little 6 year old boy who wormed his way into his heart. Now though, the little boy is all man, and when Pippin’s mother throws him under a bus (not literally, mind you!) of course Ashley will step up to look after the young man. But Pippin is proud, and won’t just take Ashley’s care, he must give back. The big bear of a man is Pippin’s idea of heaven, he just has to reach out and take him.
This has to be the sweetest, cutest CLEANEST book I've read in a long time, and I inhaled this book. I mean, I sat down, and didn’t move til I was done. It is only short, took me just over an hour but I really LOVED!
Ashley is the sweetest bear of a man, and no one can see that, except Pippin. Pippin sees Ashley, deep down, that he isn’t anyone’s “daddy”. He wants to look after people, yes, but PIPPIN is at the top of that very short list. PIPPIN is the one he realises he wants, even as he fights his attraction to the smaller man. PIPPIN tells Ashley he wants him, too, but not just for a quick lay. Pippin wants his first time to be special, and ASHLEY is that special man for Pippin.
I didn’t like what Pippin’s mum does to him, but you kinda saw that one coming like a train wreck and you can’t do anything to stop it.
The only thing, the one thing I cannot forgive is that Pippin doesn’t get a say! I wanted desperately to hear from him, even if it does make it first person/present tense/MULTI point of view (cos that would be my idea of Hell!) I NEEDED Pippin and I don’t get him. And I wanted to know, just what it was about Ashley that pushed his buttons, what he thought when Ashley’s ex turned up (and I LOVED how Pippin reacted to that!) and I wanted to know how he felt about his mum, and what she was doing to him.
That’s the only reason I gave it 4 stars and not 5 stars, was because I did not get Pippin and I really needed him.
I’ve not read anything by this author before, but if they are all this good, I’d gladly inhale a few more!
4 sweet, cute, warm and so bloody fuzzies stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I’m gonna jump straight in here, cos, well, because it’s my review and I can.
If you follow my reviews, you’ll know I have a particular dislike of several things.
First Person
Present Tense
Single Point of View.
So, when I started this book, and found it first person AND present tense, I got all ansty and twitchy and thought, nope, not doing it. THEN I realised it was single point of view, and my twitchiness went sky high and . . . .
bloody hell if I did not bloody LOVE this book!
Ashley or Buck, depending on who addresses him, was 22 years old when he first met Pippin and now, some 15 years (I was a bit unclear on that) later, he is still looking out for the little 6 year old boy who wormed his way into his heart. Now though, the little boy is all man, and when Pippin’s mother throws him under a bus (not literally, mind you!) of course Ashley will step up to look after the young man. But Pippin is proud, and won’t just take Ashley’s care, he must give back. The big bear of a man is Pippin’s idea of heaven, he just has to reach out and take him.
This has to be the sweetest, cutest CLEANEST book I've read in a long time, and I inhaled this book. I mean, I sat down, and didn’t move til I was done. It is only short, took me just over an hour but I really LOVED!
Ashley is the sweetest bear of a man, and no one can see that, except Pippin. Pippin sees Ashley, deep down, that he isn’t anyone’s “daddy”. He wants to look after people, yes, but PIPPIN is at the top of that very short list. PIPPIN is the one he realises he wants, even as he fights his attraction to the smaller man. PIPPIN tells Ashley he wants him, too, but not just for a quick lay. Pippin wants his first time to be special, and ASHLEY is that special man for Pippin.
I didn’t like what Pippin’s mum does to him, but you kinda saw that one coming like a train wreck and you can’t do anything to stop it.
The only thing, the one thing I cannot forgive is that Pippin doesn’t get a say! I wanted desperately to hear from him, even if it does make it first person/present tense/MULTI point of view (cos that would be my idea of Hell!) I NEEDED Pippin and I don’t get him. And I wanted to know, just what it was about Ashley that pushed his buttons, what he thought when Ashley’s ex turned up (and I LOVED how Pippin reacted to that!) and I wanted to know how he felt about his mum, and what she was doing to him.
That’s the only reason I gave it 4 stars and not 5 stars, was because I did not get Pippin and I really needed him.
I’ve not read anything by this author before, but if they are all this good, I’d gladly inhale a few more!
4 sweet, cute, warm and so bloody fuzzies stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Forever Fudge in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Forever Fudge by Nancy Coco is a sweet cozy mystery. Readers will salivate with the fudge recipes, be charmed on the Mackinac Island, and attempt to crack the murder mystery along with the main character Allie McMurphy.
Coco is a great pseudonym for the Fudge series. “I really enjoy writing these cozy mysteries with the humor and solving the puzzle. While writing my first series, I would put recipes on my blog. Then a friend of mine suggested I should write in this genre with a gluten free bakery. My last name was specifically chosen for this series. I love fudge, actually anything chocolate. The person in the apartment next to us said it always smells like chocolate in my house. Not only does it smell good but tastes good as well.”
Allie is an amateur sleuth. She and her dog Mal have an uncanny ability to find dead bodies. In the past, she has helped the police solve cases. As the owner of a delightful hotel and fudge shop on Mackinac Island, Allie’s excitement has grown after a television crew arrives on the island to film a television pilot for a mystery series. Throwing a wrench into the enthusiasm is the dead body found by Allie’s adorable Bichon-Poo puppy, Mal. Shot in the head, the body discovered has a letter with clues from chess moves. As the killings mount up, the murderer continues to taunt Allie, trying to get her to play his game.
The island plays a role in the story. “I have a huge family living in Michigan, which is where the island is located. If you ever saw the movie, “Somewhere in Time” starring Christopher Reeve, you can picture the setting. The island does not allow cars so people travel by foot, horse and carriage, or bicycle. It is a cool touristy place.”
There is also a love triangle. Allie is being wooed by two courters. She broke up with Trent Jessup because a long-distance relationship is not working, with him spending a lot of time in Chicago. The other beau is police chief Rex Manning who is being persistent in pursuing her, yet, willing to give her time and space.
“I thought it is interesting to compare ‘in love versus loving someone.’ I love my male friends but being ‘in love’ has excitement, a commitment, and intimacy. Allie is starting to build connections but some old timers see her as an outsider. One of those who accept her as part of the community is Rex who sees it as his responsibility to protect her and the community.”
Actual recipes are dispersed throughout the story. “I purposely did it this way to show what Allie is working on. I sprinkle it throughout to give the feel and flavor to what she is actually making. I try to relate it to the story when possible. I remember my first contract with Kensington Books required me to write ten recipes per book. Luckily, they downsized that amount. Since they had to be originals it was a relief.”
This story has an intriguing mystery, some romance, and humor. It is a fun who done it plot that has no shortage of suspects. Readers will be looking forward to the next installment, Fudge Bits, out next fall, a Halloween plot. It will highlight her cat instead of her dog that finds a Zombie body.
Coco is a great pseudonym for the Fudge series. “I really enjoy writing these cozy mysteries with the humor and solving the puzzle. While writing my first series, I would put recipes on my blog. Then a friend of mine suggested I should write in this genre with a gluten free bakery. My last name was specifically chosen for this series. I love fudge, actually anything chocolate. The person in the apartment next to us said it always smells like chocolate in my house. Not only does it smell good but tastes good as well.”
Allie is an amateur sleuth. She and her dog Mal have an uncanny ability to find dead bodies. In the past, she has helped the police solve cases. As the owner of a delightful hotel and fudge shop on Mackinac Island, Allie’s excitement has grown after a television crew arrives on the island to film a television pilot for a mystery series. Throwing a wrench into the enthusiasm is the dead body found by Allie’s adorable Bichon-Poo puppy, Mal. Shot in the head, the body discovered has a letter with clues from chess moves. As the killings mount up, the murderer continues to taunt Allie, trying to get her to play his game.
The island plays a role in the story. “I have a huge family living in Michigan, which is where the island is located. If you ever saw the movie, “Somewhere in Time” starring Christopher Reeve, you can picture the setting. The island does not allow cars so people travel by foot, horse and carriage, or bicycle. It is a cool touristy place.”
There is also a love triangle. Allie is being wooed by two courters. She broke up with Trent Jessup because a long-distance relationship is not working, with him spending a lot of time in Chicago. The other beau is police chief Rex Manning who is being persistent in pursuing her, yet, willing to give her time and space.
“I thought it is interesting to compare ‘in love versus loving someone.’ I love my male friends but being ‘in love’ has excitement, a commitment, and intimacy. Allie is starting to build connections but some old timers see her as an outsider. One of those who accept her as part of the community is Rex who sees it as his responsibility to protect her and the community.”
Actual recipes are dispersed throughout the story. “I purposely did it this way to show what Allie is working on. I sprinkle it throughout to give the feel and flavor to what she is actually making. I try to relate it to the story when possible. I remember my first contract with Kensington Books required me to write ten recipes per book. Luckily, they downsized that amount. Since they had to be originals it was a relief.”
This story has an intriguing mystery, some romance, and humor. It is a fun who done it plot that has no shortage of suspects. Readers will be looking forward to the next installment, Fudge Bits, out next fall, a Halloween plot. It will highlight her cat instead of her dog that finds a Zombie body.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Good sci-fi, but a poor sequel
Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot in common with last year’s Jurassic World. They both are long-awaited sequels to fan-favourite blockbusters, bringing a new generation the same thrills and spills of their forbearers.
Unfortunately, it just so happens that they share the same pitfalls too. But is Independence Day: Resurgence a match for its 1996 predecessor? Or does it crash and burn?
Roland Emmerich returns to the director’s chair, bringing the same breadth of destruction he’s brought to all of his films. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and White House Down all prove he’s the master of the apocalypse and Resurgence is no exception.
As the Fourth of July nears, satellite engineer David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) investigates a 3,000-mile-wide mother ship that’s approaching Earth. Fortunately, 20 years earlier, nations across the world started to use recovered extra-terrestrial technology to develop an immense defence program. When the alien invaders attack with unprecedented force, the U.S. president, teams of scientists and brave fighter pilots spring into action to save the planet from a seemingly invincible enemy.
Emmerich throws everything he can at the screen in a film just shy of two hours. The pace rarely lets up and it’s a rollercoaster ride to watch. Dozens of global landmarks are destroyed as our characters race to stop the new alien invasion.
Liam Hemsworth (The Hunger Games), Sela Ward (Gone Girl) and Jessie Usher make up the majority of the new cast with Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch providing a warm sense of nostalgia from the first film. There’s no return for Will Smith, with Jessie Usher playing his step-son and his character is conveniently written out.
Unfortunately, despite the talents of the new cast, the script doesn’t really give them anything to sink their teeth into and the overabundance of, admittedly breath-taking CGI, means there’s nothing there for them to react to – and it shows. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see Jeff Goldblum front and centre after nearly a decade of small film roles.
It’s just a shame that the script is wholly unoriginal. We saw most of it done in 1996, and frankly done better. Since then, there have been countless generic sci-fi flicks that have pushed the same simple premise on their audience and Resurgence suffers due to its timing more than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all good fun IF you’re a fan of the genre, and there are some nice references to the first film. The aliens themselves look fantastic and the cinematography is generally very impressive, especially during the aerial bound action sequences.
However, things unravel at the finale. With what is undoubtedly one of the most stupid endings ever put to film, it’s hard not to laugh in amazement as you ponder just what was said around the production table to end up with a final act as ill-advised as this.
Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot going for it. A likeable new and returning cast is bolstered by brilliant, if overused, CGI and a frantic pace. Unfortunately, it’s a victim of its timing and as such is a decent sci-fi flick, but a poor sequel to its fantastic predecessor.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/24/good-sci-fi-but-a-poor-sequel-independence-day-resurgence-review/
Unfortunately, it just so happens that they share the same pitfalls too. But is Independence Day: Resurgence a match for its 1996 predecessor? Or does it crash and burn?
Roland Emmerich returns to the director’s chair, bringing the same breadth of destruction he’s brought to all of his films. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and White House Down all prove he’s the master of the apocalypse and Resurgence is no exception.
As the Fourth of July nears, satellite engineer David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) investigates a 3,000-mile-wide mother ship that’s approaching Earth. Fortunately, 20 years earlier, nations across the world started to use recovered extra-terrestrial technology to develop an immense defence program. When the alien invaders attack with unprecedented force, the U.S. president, teams of scientists and brave fighter pilots spring into action to save the planet from a seemingly invincible enemy.
Emmerich throws everything he can at the screen in a film just shy of two hours. The pace rarely lets up and it’s a rollercoaster ride to watch. Dozens of global landmarks are destroyed as our characters race to stop the new alien invasion.
Liam Hemsworth (The Hunger Games), Sela Ward (Gone Girl) and Jessie Usher make up the majority of the new cast with Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch providing a warm sense of nostalgia from the first film. There’s no return for Will Smith, with Jessie Usher playing his step-son and his character is conveniently written out.
Unfortunately, despite the talents of the new cast, the script doesn’t really give them anything to sink their teeth into and the overabundance of, admittedly breath-taking CGI, means there’s nothing there for them to react to – and it shows. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see Jeff Goldblum front and centre after nearly a decade of small film roles.
It’s just a shame that the script is wholly unoriginal. We saw most of it done in 1996, and frankly done better. Since then, there have been countless generic sci-fi flicks that have pushed the same simple premise on their audience and Resurgence suffers due to its timing more than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all good fun IF you’re a fan of the genre, and there are some nice references to the first film. The aliens themselves look fantastic and the cinematography is generally very impressive, especially during the aerial bound action sequences.
However, things unravel at the finale. With what is undoubtedly one of the most stupid endings ever put to film, it’s hard not to laugh in amazement as you ponder just what was said around the production table to end up with a final act as ill-advised as this.
Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot going for it. A likeable new and returning cast is bolstered by brilliant, if overused, CGI and a frantic pace. Unfortunately, it’s a victim of its timing and as such is a decent sci-fi flick, but a poor sequel to its fantastic predecessor.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/24/good-sci-fi-but-a-poor-sequel-independence-day-resurgence-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Noah (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Biblical epics never seem to translate well from paper to the big screen. Mel Gibson’s 2004 misfire, The Passion of the Christ, showed just how difficult it was to turn promising source material into silver screen gold.
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
Josh Napper (40 KP) rated Spare Parts (2015) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
Plot
With the help of their high school's newest teacher (George Lopez), four Hispanic students form a robotics club. Although they have no experience, the youths set their sights on a national robotics contest. With $800 and parts scavenged from old cars, they build a robot and compete against reigning champion MIT. Along the way, the students learn not only how to build a robot but something far more important: how to forge bonds that will last a lifetime.
What lessons did you learn from this story (theme/moral)? What do you think others will learn from it?
One man can open eyes, and not just one or two eyes but a whole family, team, school, and community. It's not about where you are that truly matters; it’s about the people you are with here that truly matters. Even if you do not get the results you wanted to have when the final second ticks off the clock, you are, and you will always be a winner. No matter how much success you have on your own you are alone, so do it as a team, that way you are and never will be alone.
To summarize it, I liked the whole thing. The fact that the students and even the teacher faced those odds and still went after what they wanted and felt they could do it.
What group of people would like this movie? Who would you recommend it to? Who would you not recommend it to?
I would gladly recommend it to anyone. However, to break it down into smaller groups, I would recommend it to three groups. 1st of all, I would recommend it to students who are told they can’t do something they really wanna do due to one thing or another because the real-life characters of the movie had to go thru the same exact thing. 2nd of all, I would recommend it to teachers and other staff at school, mainly the high school level, so they could take a lesson from this inspiring movie and turn it into their own way of inspiring their students and to get their classmates to work together to turn their little old ideas and dreams into not just reality but also successes. 3rd of all, I would recommend it to people in general who are down on their knees wanting to watch something that would motivate them to not ever give up on their dreams.
What is your final word on the film: Is it good or bad?
The movie Spare Parts is a fantastic film that deals with real-life events. It is kinda incredible that it is simply another movie that was inspired by a true story. Once you look into what the real-life characters had to go thru– their struggle and their success– I was shocked simply due to the unbelievable amount of pain and struggle leading all up to an ending that saw them not only surprise everyone but also themselves. The actors and the actresses completely make it believable that they are not there themselves because it makes you believe they are really going through the events of the movie.
RATING SYSTEM:
1- crap
2- poor
3- decent
4- even
5- Good
6- Great
7- perfect
I give the movie spare parts a movie rating of 6
With the help of their high school's newest teacher (George Lopez), four Hispanic students form a robotics club. Although they have no experience, the youths set their sights on a national robotics contest. With $800 and parts scavenged from old cars, they build a robot and compete against reigning champion MIT. Along the way, the students learn not only how to build a robot but something far more important: how to forge bonds that will last a lifetime.
What lessons did you learn from this story (theme/moral)? What do you think others will learn from it?
One man can open eyes, and not just one or two eyes but a whole family, team, school, and community. It's not about where you are that truly matters; it’s about the people you are with here that truly matters. Even if you do not get the results you wanted to have when the final second ticks off the clock, you are, and you will always be a winner. No matter how much success you have on your own you are alone, so do it as a team, that way you are and never will be alone.
To summarize it, I liked the whole thing. The fact that the students and even the teacher faced those odds and still went after what they wanted and felt they could do it.
What group of people would like this movie? Who would you recommend it to? Who would you not recommend it to?
I would gladly recommend it to anyone. However, to break it down into smaller groups, I would recommend it to three groups. 1st of all, I would recommend it to students who are told they can’t do something they really wanna do due to one thing or another because the real-life characters of the movie had to go thru the same exact thing. 2nd of all, I would recommend it to teachers and other staff at school, mainly the high school level, so they could take a lesson from this inspiring movie and turn it into their own way of inspiring their students and to get their classmates to work together to turn their little old ideas and dreams into not just reality but also successes. 3rd of all, I would recommend it to people in general who are down on their knees wanting to watch something that would motivate them to not ever give up on their dreams.
What is your final word on the film: Is it good or bad?
The movie Spare Parts is a fantastic film that deals with real-life events. It is kinda incredible that it is simply another movie that was inspired by a true story. Once you look into what the real-life characters had to go thru– their struggle and their success– I was shocked simply due to the unbelievable amount of pain and struggle leading all up to an ending that saw them not only surprise everyone but also themselves. The actors and the actresses completely make it believable that they are not there themselves because it makes you believe they are really going through the events of the movie.
RATING SYSTEM:
1- crap
2- poor
3- decent
4- even
5- Good
6- Great
7- perfect
I give the movie spare parts a movie rating of 6