Search
Search results
Kristin (149 KP) rated Sherlock - Season 1 in TV
Jul 11, 2018
The first and second seasons are my favorite. Cumberbatch and Freeman are perfect as these characters, and I love their chemistry together. All the major players are fantastic, and don't even get me started on Andrew Scott as Moriarty. The very first episode pulled me in and it never let up from there.
An amazing recreation of Harlan Ellison's ORIGINAL screenplay for City on the Edge of Forever, regarded to this day as one of Star Trek's best stories. And while the differences are fairly major, the character of the piece remains, a timeless love story set against a ticking clock, a death that must happen or all of history will be erased. The script is good, (but sorry, Harlan, it is un-filmable in this form, at least as a Trek episode. There are simply too many small bits--like the portrayal of Spock--that just don't line up with what the show had set forth previously. But there are other moments, like the steely resolve of Yeoman Rand that I desperately wish had made the cut.)
Scott and David Tipton are no strangers to Trek, and they have adapted the screenplay masterfully. J.K. Woodward, who's watercolor paintings I did not like in the Doctor Who Trek crossover, work fantastically here for this story, and the art really helps capture the look and feel of 1930s. Outstanding all the way around and well worth your time, no matter how familiar you are with the source material, or the episode that it became.
Scott and David Tipton are no strangers to Trek, and they have adapted the screenplay masterfully. J.K. Woodward, who's watercolor paintings I did not like in the Doctor Who Trek crossover, work fantastically here for this story, and the art really helps capture the look and feel of 1930s. Outstanding all the way around and well worth your time, no matter how familiar you are with the source material, or the episode that it became.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Exodus: Gods and Kings is a new movie directed by Ridley Scott.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Awix (3310 KP) rated Victor Frankenstein (2015) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018 (Updated Feb 25, 2018)
I, Igor
If you're one of those people who thinks that the story of Frankenstein pays far too much attention to him actually making the monster, and not enough to the details and ups-and-downs of his relationship with Igor the hunchback, then this is the film for you (although if that's your attitude, you really don't deserve Frankenstein movies at all). Deformed circus clown becomes brilliant self-taught surgeon and anatomist, is rescued by unconventional medical student, gets put to work stitching.
James McAvoy could have been a great Frankenstein, but not with a script like this one - narration keeps banging on about how familiar we all are with this story, before going off into new and wildly eccentric territory - Igor has a romance with a trapeze artist, there are problems with steampunk zombie chimps, etc. Actual creation of famous monster only happens in last ten minutes. Film has zero feeling for historical setting (a version of Victorian London where nobody bats an eyelid if your name is Igor or Frankenstein).
All the major themes of Shelley's story are basically sidelined in favour of overwrought emotional drama. Best thing in it is possibly Andrew Scott as a detective looking to bust Dr F for interfering with zoo animals; his scenes with McAvoy are actually pretty interesting. The kind of film that seems to be afraid the audience will get bored and wander away if there isn't an outbreak of slow-mo or CGI or whatever every five minutes. How does Max Landis manage to keep selling scripts like this one? Moderately good-looking but a massive waste of potential.
James McAvoy could have been a great Frankenstein, but not with a script like this one - narration keeps banging on about how familiar we all are with this story, before going off into new and wildly eccentric territory - Igor has a romance with a trapeze artist, there are problems with steampunk zombie chimps, etc. Actual creation of famous monster only happens in last ten minutes. Film has zero feeling for historical setting (a version of Victorian London where nobody bats an eyelid if your name is Igor or Frankenstein).
All the major themes of Shelley's story are basically sidelined in favour of overwrought emotional drama. Best thing in it is possibly Andrew Scott as a detective looking to bust Dr F for interfering with zoo animals; his scenes with McAvoy are actually pretty interesting. The kind of film that seems to be afraid the audience will get bored and wander away if there isn't an outbreak of slow-mo or CGI or whatever every five minutes. How does Max Landis manage to keep selling scripts like this one? Moderately good-looking but a massive waste of potential.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Elephant Mountains in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book is set in New Orleans and the surrounding areas, which is near where I am from, so I was intrigued by the book. The post-apocalyptic story line is reminiscent of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but on a grander scale. The language, the culture, the people -- all are true to the New Orleans area.
Right away I was struck by the simplistic nature of the writing. This is Scott Ely's first book in the Young Adult genre, which I could easily guess from what the writing lacked. One major thing that bothered me throughout the book was Ely's habit of "telling" instead of "showing." He repeatedly made statements in the book like this: "She went on to tell him that their house was close by, on high ground, and they thought they could live upstairs." (page 38) Why couldn't Ely have written this out in dialogue. This kind of writing is littered throughout the text, and it left me feeling like I had been shorted a proper book. At a little over 200 pages in length, this book was too short for my expectations. I normally love dystopia, but this one was disappointing.
The main character Stephen was a likable character, but he seemed to be both extremely lucky and a kind of talisman for death. I understand that the conditions of the area that Stephen was traveling through were extremely dangerous with very limited resources, but did just about every single person that Stephen came across have to die? That strikes me as overkill, pardon the pun.
I also did not understand the ending. If there really was as much flooding as the radio continuously announced, then Stephen would have needed to travel much further than he did to find dry ground.
I gave the book three stars because I really liked the premise of the book, though it fell short of my expectations.
Right away I was struck by the simplistic nature of the writing. This is Scott Ely's first book in the Young Adult genre, which I could easily guess from what the writing lacked. One major thing that bothered me throughout the book was Ely's habit of "telling" instead of "showing." He repeatedly made statements in the book like this: "She went on to tell him that their house was close by, on high ground, and they thought they could live upstairs." (page 38) Why couldn't Ely have written this out in dialogue. This kind of writing is littered throughout the text, and it left me feeling like I had been shorted a proper book. At a little over 200 pages in length, this book was too short for my expectations. I normally love dystopia, but this one was disappointing.
The main character Stephen was a likable character, but he seemed to be both extremely lucky and a kind of talisman for death. I understand that the conditions of the area that Stephen was traveling through were extremely dangerous with very limited resources, but did just about every single person that Stephen came across have to die? That strikes me as overkill, pardon the pun.
I also did not understand the ending. If there really was as much flooding as the radio continuously announced, then Stephen would have needed to travel much further than he did to find dry ground.
I gave the book three stars because I really liked the premise of the book, though it fell short of my expectations.
Justin Taylor (59 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
Very entertaining and funny (5 more)
The title Characters have great chemistry
The villain is once again relateable
Nods to possible future plans particularly with Scott Lang's daughter. If u read the comics and saw this movie u know that they set her up so hard to be what she is in the comics and u never know
a what the future may hold
Luis kills it again with his comic relief and so does his pals
Stick around for the credits scenes like with all other marvel movies
Not very necessary to and in the MCU but brings up some things that may be important to the universe moving forward especially with avengers 4 on the horizon (2 more)
The side villain wasn't very great but not bad
It's a true sequel nothing else to say
Not necessary but fun movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ok so elephant in the room this movie didn't have to happen and I wouldve been fine either way but I enjoyed it nonetheless and it was a very fun movie especially after the movie we had before it and it was like a tissue we needed. And also this takes place during the event that was infinity war so take note of that.
Almost everyone is great in this movie with the exception of The side villain...he wasn't great but wasn't terrible as long as the guy who's playing hims last name is not Grace I'm fine.
Also while it's not necessary in the universe but it brings up points about future possibilities of the universe going forward especially with avengers 4 coming next year and yeah this movie does not impact the universe in any major way except for the credits scene.
Overall I had fun with it. do u need to watch it to get ready for avengers 4?
that's up to you, but it's a great movie either way
Almost everyone is great in this movie with the exception of The side villain...he wasn't great but wasn't terrible as long as the guy who's playing hims last name is not Grace I'm fine.
Also while it's not necessary in the universe but it brings up points about future possibilities of the universe going forward especially with avengers 4 coming next year and yeah this movie does not impact the universe in any major way except for the credits scene.
Overall I had fun with it. do u need to watch it to get ready for avengers 4?
that's up to you, but it's a great movie either way
Dana (24 KP) rated The Great Gatsby in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I had to reread this book for one of my classes in college, so this, I believe, is the second or third time I have had to read this book.
I understand why it is a lot of people's favorite book, it is very good, especially with all of the hidden meanings and themes throughout the novel. The only thing is that I feel like it is kind of overrated. Don't hate me, I have reasons.
So many students in the United States have to read this book in high school, most in their Junior year, but I don't know if they are fully able to grasp all of the hidden depths to it. People will go around quoting the book over an over and not stop to question or analyze what they are saying. I understand that not everyone is an English major and that they don't all want to analyze everything they are saying, but at least thinking about it should be done a bit more.
That being said, I really do enjoy this book. Each sentence is so complex in its own way and I love it when books are like that. It would be so easy to be able to write a whole paper on just a small portion of this book in this review, but I promise I'm not going to do that.
So for the class I am reading this for, we are studying it less in the context of what is going on in the novel and more on the period it was written in: the Modernist period. In looking at the style and the cultural and historical influences on F Scott Fitzgerald, I feel like I am able to get more out of the book and the reasons behind each plot point and character. This is a book that is studying people's deficiencies and culture's issues in a not so subtle way.
The characters are really fun to study because they are all not so great people. They all have flaws that are so noticeable to the readers, but it is trying to understand why they are the way they are that is the most fun, at least for me.
If you ever get a chance to study this in a class that is not your high school English course, I would highly recommend it because it almost starts to feel like a whole new book!
I understand why it is a lot of people's favorite book, it is very good, especially with all of the hidden meanings and themes throughout the novel. The only thing is that I feel like it is kind of overrated. Don't hate me, I have reasons.
So many students in the United States have to read this book in high school, most in their Junior year, but I don't know if they are fully able to grasp all of the hidden depths to it. People will go around quoting the book over an over and not stop to question or analyze what they are saying. I understand that not everyone is an English major and that they don't all want to analyze everything they are saying, but at least thinking about it should be done a bit more.
That being said, I really do enjoy this book. Each sentence is so complex in its own way and I love it when books are like that. It would be so easy to be able to write a whole paper on just a small portion of this book in this review, but I promise I'm not going to do that.
So for the class I am reading this for, we are studying it less in the context of what is going on in the novel and more on the period it was written in: the Modernist period. In looking at the style and the cultural and historical influences on F Scott Fitzgerald, I feel like I am able to get more out of the book and the reasons behind each plot point and character. This is a book that is studying people's deficiencies and culture's issues in a not so subtle way.
The characters are really fun to study because they are all not so great people. They all have flaws that are so noticeable to the readers, but it is trying to understand why they are the way they are that is the most fun, at least for me.
If you ever get a chance to study this in a class that is not your high school English course, I would highly recommend it because it almost starts to feel like a whole new book!
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Titans in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<i>Titans</i> is amazing, I adored the book and everything that came with it, and...
I want a Titan of my own as well.... Then again, I don't have horse riding experience, so I'll probably fall straight onto the ground face first. I'll stick with those wooden sticks that only have a horse head.
Here's what I adored and loved about Victoria Scott's latest novel (this is my first time reading her works....):
<ul>
<li>Mechanical horses, and it's not just a mechanical horse for experimental purposes. The mechanical horses, known as Titans in the book are horses used for racing. They not only resemble real horses, but they have emotions as well, and that's a little scary. The Kentucky Derby just got a new twist.</li>
<li>Victoria Scott almost always has a dash of humor in her characters' dialogue. I think this takes talent.</li>
<li>I adored each and every one of the major characters in the story. And if I didn't like them at first, I loved them by the end. That says something.</li>
</ul>
We have Astrid, a girl living an extremely rough life with everything on the line and sometimes scavenging to make a living. Being able to race in the Titan Derby allows her the chance to turn her rough life around, and she is determined to do what it takes within honorable boundaries. She also has a talent with math and can probably Calculus better than I ever did.
Then there's Magnolia, Astrid's best friend since childhood with the same amount of problems as Astrid if not more. But despite all of that, there is a strong bond of friendship between the two girls and Magnolia is there for Astrid every step of the way throughout the race, encouraging and supporting her. She is also hilarious and basically makes everything seem much better than they really are.
Victoria also introduces us to Rags, one of the key players who started the whole Titans spiel for Astrid (okay, he also started the whole Titans spiel in the first place) and allowing her the opportunity to race in the derby. He's a grumpy old man who comes across as overly crabby at first, but is secretly warm, fuzzy, and grandpa-ish.
Another key player to the whole Titans spiel is Barney, and he is definitely not the purple dinosaur from childhood. Although to be honest... he certainly reminds me of Childhood Barney in a weird way.
And later completing the ensemble, Victoria eventually introduces us to Lottie, a wealthy lady who has a history with Rags and gives off an "I seem intimidating because of my status, but I'm not <em>that</em> intimidating" vibe. She is also one of the few people who has hopes for Astrid early in the races and offers to be Astrid's sponsor, along with teaching her (and Magnolia) proper etiquette among the upper classes. Lottie is almost a surrogate mother outside of Astrid's home.
But even though they are all different from each other and normally wouldn't be caught dead together, the five of them click well throughout the duration of the race, forming a lasting friendship. The combination of friendship with the aspect of mechanical horses put together makes <i>Titans</i> a fantastic read for all ages.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-titans-by-victoria-scott/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<i>Titans</i> is amazing, I adored the book and everything that came with it, and...
I want a Titan of my own as well.... Then again, I don't have horse riding experience, so I'll probably fall straight onto the ground face first. I'll stick with those wooden sticks that only have a horse head.
Here's what I adored and loved about Victoria Scott's latest novel (this is my first time reading her works....):
<ul>
<li>Mechanical horses, and it's not just a mechanical horse for experimental purposes. The mechanical horses, known as Titans in the book are horses used for racing. They not only resemble real horses, but they have emotions as well, and that's a little scary. The Kentucky Derby just got a new twist.</li>
<li>Victoria Scott almost always has a dash of humor in her characters' dialogue. I think this takes talent.</li>
<li>I adored each and every one of the major characters in the story. And if I didn't like them at first, I loved them by the end. That says something.</li>
</ul>
We have Astrid, a girl living an extremely rough life with everything on the line and sometimes scavenging to make a living. Being able to race in the Titan Derby allows her the chance to turn her rough life around, and she is determined to do what it takes within honorable boundaries. She also has a talent with math and can probably Calculus better than I ever did.
Then there's Magnolia, Astrid's best friend since childhood with the same amount of problems as Astrid if not more. But despite all of that, there is a strong bond of friendship between the two girls and Magnolia is there for Astrid every step of the way throughout the race, encouraging and supporting her. She is also hilarious and basically makes everything seem much better than they really are.
Victoria also introduces us to Rags, one of the key players who started the whole Titans spiel for Astrid (okay, he also started the whole Titans spiel in the first place) and allowing her the opportunity to race in the derby. He's a grumpy old man who comes across as overly crabby at first, but is secretly warm, fuzzy, and grandpa-ish.
Another key player to the whole Titans spiel is Barney, and he is definitely not the purple dinosaur from childhood. Although to be honest... he certainly reminds me of Childhood Barney in a weird way.
And later completing the ensemble, Victoria eventually introduces us to Lottie, a wealthy lady who has a history with Rags and gives off an "I seem intimidating because of my status, but I'm not <em>that</em> intimidating" vibe. She is also one of the few people who has hopes for Astrid early in the races and offers to be Astrid's sponsor, along with teaching her (and Magnolia) proper etiquette among the upper classes. Lottie is almost a surrogate mother outside of Astrid's home.
But even though they are all different from each other and normally wouldn't be caught dead together, the five of them click well throughout the duration of the race, forming a lasting friendship. The combination of friendship with the aspect of mechanical horses put together makes <i>Titans</i> a fantastic read for all ages.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-titans-by-victoria-scott/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Moneyball (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Baseball economics has long a source of serious debate amongst fans, players, and teams. The contentious issues of how to divide the revenue in an equitable manner led to the cancellation of the playoffs and World Series in 1994 and is still largely unresolved today. While smaller market teams are given funds from a luxury tax imposed on larger payroll teams, it still fails to provide an even competitive playing field when large market teams, such as the New York Yankees, can field teams with a $225 million-plus payroll while the smaller market teams have to make do with budgets often under $40 million.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.