Search
Search results
Syntorial - Synth Training App
Music and Education
App
Syntorial is a synthesizer training app, that will teach you how to program synth patches by ear. By...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated James Acaster: Repertoire in TV
Aug 6, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
I have been a fan of stand up comedy, erm, all my life… well, at least since Billy Connely kinda invented it, in a way that wasn’t all about hating the mother in law and homophobia. When I moved to Edinburgh in 1999, I found myself at the epicentre of new comedy, every August at the unparalleled event that is the Fringe Festival.
Over the years I have seen most of the living greats at the art live, be it a full show or a smaller set at the legendary bullpit of Late and Live. Sad exceptions being Eddie Izzard and Dylan Moran, still on the bucket list. It has given me a pretty good eye for who is gonna make it big when they start out. I saw Jack Whitehall aged 16; Jimmy Carr before anyone knew who he was; and many others that have gone on to have decent TV and touring careers.
Having moved to Glasgow in recent years I started to see less comedy. Not that The Stand and other venues don’t have it going on, but because it just feels less of a thing outside of Edinburgh. So, when James Acaster came to my old place of work, the legendary Oran Mor, I booked tickets for myself, my daughter and her boyfriend in a heartbeat.
I had seen him do a lot of Mock The Week and a few other guest spots on TV, and thought from the start that this guy had something kinda special. The main good sign being that he made me laugh! A kind of blonder Jarvis Cocker, with the dress sense to match, he has a quirky, sleepy but cross delivery that is a total winner. He is very fast with an improvised moment, is very clever in his off kilter observations, and charmingly wanders into surreal tangents whenever possible. In other words, totally up my comedy avenue.
I was delighted to see that he had a new four part special on Netflix when I was recently surfing around old comedy shows I’ve seen half a dozen times. Repertoire is consecutive shows that work either alone, or payoff better as a whole, when early jokes get a back reference in a genius fashion. To explain why they are funny is not a thing I’m about to attempt. Comedy is so subjective; if it makes you laugh then it is good, if not… it might still be good, but not for you. You have to watch it to know.
So many highlights. At least three moments that made me have to pause it because I was laughing almost too much and in danger of passing out. Generally, you get a content knowing smile out of it, patting yourself on the back for getting his multi-layered intentions. Some things are just weird or hilarious, but often there is an intelligent point being made on the sly. When the two combine, I find him one of the best around for quality of writing and delivery.
As a side note, in part 3 of Repertoire he makes reference to a recent nightmare gig, when the entire front row of a Glasgow show kicked off and threw verbal abuse at him. That was the show we were at! He handled it remarkably well, turning the final portion of the show into an improv about that, chucked the planned material away. It isn’t every stand-up that can handle hecklers that well. Total kudos, Mr Acaster.
Recommended big time.
Over the years I have seen most of the living greats at the art live, be it a full show or a smaller set at the legendary bullpit of Late and Live. Sad exceptions being Eddie Izzard and Dylan Moran, still on the bucket list. It has given me a pretty good eye for who is gonna make it big when they start out. I saw Jack Whitehall aged 16; Jimmy Carr before anyone knew who he was; and many others that have gone on to have decent TV and touring careers.
Having moved to Glasgow in recent years I started to see less comedy. Not that The Stand and other venues don’t have it going on, but because it just feels less of a thing outside of Edinburgh. So, when James Acaster came to my old place of work, the legendary Oran Mor, I booked tickets for myself, my daughter and her boyfriend in a heartbeat.
I had seen him do a lot of Mock The Week and a few other guest spots on TV, and thought from the start that this guy had something kinda special. The main good sign being that he made me laugh! A kind of blonder Jarvis Cocker, with the dress sense to match, he has a quirky, sleepy but cross delivery that is a total winner. He is very fast with an improvised moment, is very clever in his off kilter observations, and charmingly wanders into surreal tangents whenever possible. In other words, totally up my comedy avenue.
I was delighted to see that he had a new four part special on Netflix when I was recently surfing around old comedy shows I’ve seen half a dozen times. Repertoire is consecutive shows that work either alone, or payoff better as a whole, when early jokes get a back reference in a genius fashion. To explain why they are funny is not a thing I’m about to attempt. Comedy is so subjective; if it makes you laugh then it is good, if not… it might still be good, but not for you. You have to watch it to know.
So many highlights. At least three moments that made me have to pause it because I was laughing almost too much and in danger of passing out. Generally, you get a content knowing smile out of it, patting yourself on the back for getting his multi-layered intentions. Some things are just weird or hilarious, but often there is an intelligent point being made on the sly. When the two combine, I find him one of the best around for quality of writing and delivery.
As a side note, in part 3 of Repertoire he makes reference to a recent nightmare gig, when the entire front row of a Glasgow show kicked off and threw verbal abuse at him. That was the show we were at! He handled it remarkably well, turning the final portion of the show into an improv about that, chucked the planned material away. It isn’t every stand-up that can handle hecklers that well. Total kudos, Mr Acaster.
Recommended big time.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated An American Pickle (2020) in Movies
Aug 22, 2020
I'm not the biggest fan of Seth Rogen, his type of humour doesn't always gel with mine, but I saw a trailer that looked amusing so I figured it was something a little different to try.
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Garrett (1099 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2020
Set design (2 more)
Costumes
Most of the acting
Story (2 more)
Theme
Message/meaning
I think I need to note a few things about my review before I actually get into it. First, I got this for free in a giveaway. Second, having watched the trailers for this I thought I wasn't going to like it and I didn't see it in theaters, the buzz and good reviews made me want to enter the giveaway so I could see it because I likely wouldn't have paid for it. Third, I know that I can "grade" movies I don't like harsher than maybe they deserve. Finally, in an effort to prevent me from being too harsh I "forced" my sister to watch it with me and some of her views of the movie and review are mixed in with my opinion of it.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
Curtis Sittenfeld's engaging novel looks at Hillary Rodham's life through this prism: what if she hadn't married Bill Clinton? In 1971, as Hillary Rodham graduates from Wellesley, she delivers a commencement speech that gains national prominence. She heads to Yale Law school--an intelligent woman, filled with the desire to help those in need. It is there she meets Bill Clinton, a fellow law student. The connection between the two is instant--for the first time, Hillary feels she has found someone who appreciates her both emotionally and physically. In real life, Hillary and Bill head to Arkansas. He proposes three times, and she finally accepts, becoming Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bel Canto (2018) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
The novel of Bel Canto is one of my favourites, and though I haven't read it for years I still recommend it to people. When I saw that they'd made a film of it I was ecstatic. But of course my luck wasn't working well! No mainstream release in the UK and seemingly not available in any way to see, then on a whim I searched Amazon and there it was, available as a digital release... GIMME!!
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Eleven Lines to Somewhere in Books
Oct 2, 2020
I am extremely happy and excited to be part of the blog tour for Eleven Lines to Somewhere by Alyson Rudd. Thank you to the team at HQ - for sending me a copy in exchange for an honest review. Check out the other book bloggers that are part of the tour as well:
Synopsis:
Everyone is searching for love. Sometimes we just take our own route to find it.
Ryan sees a young woman on the tube on his way to work, and he can't stop looking at her. Attracted and intrigued, he's set to find out more about this mysterious passenger that shares the tube with him.
Sylvie keeps travelling the underground, unable to leave for reasons unknown to Ryan. He hasn't been dating for ten years, when he was at university and the love of his life died.
But for some reason, he feels he needs to help Sylvie. In a world of missed opportunities and what-ifs, a connection has been made.
My Thoughts:
This is the second book I have read by Alyson Rudd, with the first one being The First Time Lauren Pailing Died. That book intrigued me, and when I saw Eleven Lines to Somewhere being published - I had to know and compare them.
At the beginning, I was intrigued, knowing what the synopsis is. We meet Ryan and Sylvie (separately), and we get a small glimpse into their lives. In the beginning, Ryan's story with his family and friends is more talked about. I liked getting to know Ryan, very slowly throughout the first half of the book. He is a very intriguing character himself, going through a personal time, as well as making very controversial decisions to get to know Sylvie better.
I liked Sylvie's story and her connection to the underground. It was very intriguing to me to read and understand how some moments in life can let us become something that we can't help but be. That a certain experience can cause such a need for Sylvie to action. I loved the psychological aspect of her characterisation, and how the trauma was handled.
Once Ryan and Sylvie got to know each other, the pace of the book changed, I felt. The pace was very slow, but the scenes moved very quickly in time.
Even though I loved Ryan and Sylvie as separate characters, I couldn't love them as a couple.
I felt that there was chemistry and romance missing, and somehow their connection to each other was based on the need to help the other one with their own trauma. For me, that being a single reason to love someone makes me think a person is in such a relationship to only feel better about themselves. Look - I helped someone, I am a better person now. But that's just my humble opinion.
There were a lot of side characters that had their own storylines - which I really enjoyed. A lot of drama and twists happened with them, which was quite enjoyable to read. Some characters in the end were thrown into the story abruptly, almost as if for convenience to the story line. But it worked well in the end.
I really enjoyed this story. Still a 4 star, but I enjoyed it more than The First Time Lauren Pailing Died. If you love contemporary books with a lot of characters, this will be a very good pick for you!
Synopsis:
Everyone is searching for love. Sometimes we just take our own route to find it.
Ryan sees a young woman on the tube on his way to work, and he can't stop looking at her. Attracted and intrigued, he's set to find out more about this mysterious passenger that shares the tube with him.
Sylvie keeps travelling the underground, unable to leave for reasons unknown to Ryan. He hasn't been dating for ten years, when he was at university and the love of his life died.
But for some reason, he feels he needs to help Sylvie. In a world of missed opportunities and what-ifs, a connection has been made.
My Thoughts:
This is the second book I have read by Alyson Rudd, with the first one being The First Time Lauren Pailing Died. That book intrigued me, and when I saw Eleven Lines to Somewhere being published - I had to know and compare them.
At the beginning, I was intrigued, knowing what the synopsis is. We meet Ryan and Sylvie (separately), and we get a small glimpse into their lives. In the beginning, Ryan's story with his family and friends is more talked about. I liked getting to know Ryan, very slowly throughout the first half of the book. He is a very intriguing character himself, going through a personal time, as well as making very controversial decisions to get to know Sylvie better.
I liked Sylvie's story and her connection to the underground. It was very intriguing to me to read and understand how some moments in life can let us become something that we can't help but be. That a certain experience can cause such a need for Sylvie to action. I loved the psychological aspect of her characterisation, and how the trauma was handled.
Once Ryan and Sylvie got to know each other, the pace of the book changed, I felt. The pace was very slow, but the scenes moved very quickly in time.
Even though I loved Ryan and Sylvie as separate characters, I couldn't love them as a couple.
I felt that there was chemistry and romance missing, and somehow their connection to each other was based on the need to help the other one with their own trauma. For me, that being a single reason to love someone makes me think a person is in such a relationship to only feel better about themselves. Look - I helped someone, I am a better person now. But that's just my humble opinion.
There were a lot of side characters that had their own storylines - which I really enjoyed. A lot of drama and twists happened with them, which was quite enjoyable to read. Some characters in the end were thrown into the story abruptly, almost as if for convenience to the story line. But it worked well in the end.
I really enjoyed this story. Still a 4 star, but I enjoyed it more than The First Time Lauren Pailing Died. If you love contemporary books with a lot of characters, this will be a very good pick for you!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021
Wonderful - and Family Friendly!
Like most of us, when I first saw the trailer for the Ryan Reynolds comedy, FREE GUY (well over a year ago), I thought this looked like a bad “money grab” that will quickly come and go.
But after it premiered earlier this summer, buzz started to grow - and a few people that I trust recommended it to me, so I decided to check it out.
And…I’m glad I did for FREE GUY is a fun, family-friendly romp with a charismatic Ryan Reynolds anchoring a strong cast in a surprisingly heart-felt film.
Directed by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM), Free Guy tells the story of an NPC (Non-Playable Character in a video game) that becomes sentient.
In the capable hands of Director Levy and actor Reynolds, Guy (his character) is charming, earnest and likeable - a trio of qualities that is hard to pull off, but Levy and Reynolds walk this fine line very well, making Guy a character to root for. They wisely steer away from this character becoming cloying and annoying and just keep him charming and sincere.
This is do-able because Levy and screenwriters Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn wisely choose to not make Guy the emotional center of this film, but rather, Guy is the catalyst who moves the plot (and the other characters) towards their final destinations - all the while keeping Guy (basically) the same. A very smart move that has been used in other, successful films (most notably Michael J. Fox in the BACK TO THE FUTURE FILMS).
Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) and Joe Keery (Stranger Things) are a the heart of this film as 2 video game designers that are trying to find proof that their code was stolen by a heartless Video Game mogul (broadly, comically played by Taika Waititi). Both Comer and Keery are pleasant in their roles and they play off of Waititi (and his chief henchman, played with specific focus - this is a compliment - by Utkarsh Ambudkar). Comer and Keery make it easy for the audience to root for them and Waititi and Ambdukar make it easy for the audience to root against them.
Credit for all of this goes to Director Levy. This film has the same feel as NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. It doesn’t try to do too much, makes the motivations of the good guys and the bad guys very simple to understand and then drops in the variable (Guy) to mix things up - all done with wit, simplicity and charm - a pretty easy combination, that often gets lost in the machinations, but Levy avoids this trap very, very well.
Finally, I have to point out the performance of Lil Rel Howery as Guy’s buddy…named…Buddy. He is the perfect “Best Friend”. Again, Directed to a simple and direct performance by Levy, not trying to be more than he is, but ends up being a character you care about and root for.
A winning combination of Director, Actors and material, FREE GUY isn’t going to win any Oscars, but it is going to do something that very few films these days do - provide entertainment for the entire family.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
But after it premiered earlier this summer, buzz started to grow - and a few people that I trust recommended it to me, so I decided to check it out.
And…I’m glad I did for FREE GUY is a fun, family-friendly romp with a charismatic Ryan Reynolds anchoring a strong cast in a surprisingly heart-felt film.
Directed by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM), Free Guy tells the story of an NPC (Non-Playable Character in a video game) that becomes sentient.
In the capable hands of Director Levy and actor Reynolds, Guy (his character) is charming, earnest and likeable - a trio of qualities that is hard to pull off, but Levy and Reynolds walk this fine line very well, making Guy a character to root for. They wisely steer away from this character becoming cloying and annoying and just keep him charming and sincere.
This is do-able because Levy and screenwriters Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn wisely choose to not make Guy the emotional center of this film, but rather, Guy is the catalyst who moves the plot (and the other characters) towards their final destinations - all the while keeping Guy (basically) the same. A very smart move that has been used in other, successful films (most notably Michael J. Fox in the BACK TO THE FUTURE FILMS).
Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) and Joe Keery (Stranger Things) are a the heart of this film as 2 video game designers that are trying to find proof that their code was stolen by a heartless Video Game mogul (broadly, comically played by Taika Waititi). Both Comer and Keery are pleasant in their roles and they play off of Waititi (and his chief henchman, played with specific focus - this is a compliment - by Utkarsh Ambudkar). Comer and Keery make it easy for the audience to root for them and Waititi and Ambdukar make it easy for the audience to root against them.
Credit for all of this goes to Director Levy. This film has the same feel as NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. It doesn’t try to do too much, makes the motivations of the good guys and the bad guys very simple to understand and then drops in the variable (Guy) to mix things up - all done with wit, simplicity and charm - a pretty easy combination, that often gets lost in the machinations, but Levy avoids this trap very, very well.
Finally, I have to point out the performance of Lil Rel Howery as Guy’s buddy…named…Buddy. He is the perfect “Best Friend”. Again, Directed to a simple and direct performance by Levy, not trying to be more than he is, but ends up being a character you care about and root for.
A winning combination of Director, Actors and material, FREE GUY isn’t going to win any Oscars, but it is going to do something that very few films these days do - provide entertainment for the entire family.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)