Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Addams Family (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
“They’re creepy and they’re kooky, Mysterious and spooky, They’re all together ooky, The Addams family…” a theme song that everyone aged five to ninety-five seem to know the words to. It’s amazing to think that a show that first aired in 1964 and only ran for two seasons could continue to have the impact that it does fifty-five years later. Let that sink in for just a couple of minutes, for reference the Apollo 11 moon landing occurred in 1969 almost three years after the show’s end date. To simply say that the Addams Family has made a cultural impact on our society is a bit of an understatement, so how would the first animated full-length movie treat these cultural icons?
The Addams Family is an origin story of sorts for everyone’s favorite kooky family. Gomez Addams (Oscar Isaac) and Morticia (Charlize Theron) are rudely interrupted during their wedding ceremony by a bunch of angry villagers carrying pitchforks. While this is a little cliché’ it sets the tone for the interaction between the Addams family and how they are perceived by “normal” folks. Morticia longs for a place where they can live in peace away from those who wish to disturb their lives. On a long and windy road in New Jersey, fate appears in the form of Lurch (Conrad Vernon) as he bounces off the hood of their car. In the distance, as lightning strikes, they peer up a mountain side to see an abandoned, haunted insane asylum. The perfect place to raise a family away from the peering eyes of the rest of the world.
For thirteen years the Addams Family lives in relative seclusion with their two young children, Wednesday (Chloë Grace Moretz) and Pugsley (Finn Wolfhard). Neither of the children are allowed to leave the Asylum grounds and know of nothing outside the cold iron gates. One day, the swamp is drained, the clouds part and the Addams Family life of seclusion comes to an abrupt end. Down in the valley the town of Assimilation, a town that as its name suggests was built by famous HAG TV designer Margaux Needler (Allison Janney). The asylum (and its inhabitants) do not “fit-in” with the designer’s vision and kookiness ensues as she attempts to make-over (and take-over) the family’s home.
Visually The Addams Family reminds me of several Tim Burton classics albeit with a more colorful palette. Each member of the family is a caricature of their infamous selves and stylistically imbues the spooky, ooky, kookiest versions we would expect. Backed by an incredible amount of supporting voice talent such as Bette Midler, Martin Short, and Snoop-Dog as everyone’s favorite fuzzy cousin…It, it’s a star-studded event that even the most die-hard Addams Family purist will enjoy.
The story goes through typical tropes that we’ve seen played out a thousand times already. A misunderstood family is misjudged by their neighbors, only to come together in the end. It’s a story about celebrating our differences and learning to appreciate what makes each of us unique. In a world of social media, cell phones and television shows that try to make us all conform, it teaches us that while people may look and act different than us, they all bring something special to the table. It’s this light-heartedness and sweet story telling which while not unique is something that I feel we need more of in the world today.
The Addams Family is a film for the entire family, there is light-hearted violence, but all done in jest with no one ever getting hurt. While it doesn’t bring anything unexpected to the table, its still enjoyable and a film that doesn’t ever attempt to take itself seriously. It won’t win any best picture awards, and likely will become another 30 days of Halloween past-time when it makes its way to television, it is still one that will leave you with a smile on your face long after it is over. The experience you get from it, will likely be based on the audience reaction to the film. In the theater I was in, there was lots of laughter, snapping and even a sing-along at the end. It’s a movie to see with other people, and even if you aren’t a fan of the TV series, it will still offer you something. Sometimes a simple movie, with a simple message, is exactly the escape we need from everything in the world today. The Addams Family makes a perfect escape for the entire family this Halloween Season.
3.5 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/10/10/the-addams-family/
The Addams Family is an origin story of sorts for everyone’s favorite kooky family. Gomez Addams (Oscar Isaac) and Morticia (Charlize Theron) are rudely interrupted during their wedding ceremony by a bunch of angry villagers carrying pitchforks. While this is a little cliché’ it sets the tone for the interaction between the Addams family and how they are perceived by “normal” folks. Morticia longs for a place where they can live in peace away from those who wish to disturb their lives. On a long and windy road in New Jersey, fate appears in the form of Lurch (Conrad Vernon) as he bounces off the hood of their car. In the distance, as lightning strikes, they peer up a mountain side to see an abandoned, haunted insane asylum. The perfect place to raise a family away from the peering eyes of the rest of the world.
For thirteen years the Addams Family lives in relative seclusion with their two young children, Wednesday (Chloë Grace Moretz) and Pugsley (Finn Wolfhard). Neither of the children are allowed to leave the Asylum grounds and know of nothing outside the cold iron gates. One day, the swamp is drained, the clouds part and the Addams Family life of seclusion comes to an abrupt end. Down in the valley the town of Assimilation, a town that as its name suggests was built by famous HAG TV designer Margaux Needler (Allison Janney). The asylum (and its inhabitants) do not “fit-in” with the designer’s vision and kookiness ensues as she attempts to make-over (and take-over) the family’s home.
Visually The Addams Family reminds me of several Tim Burton classics albeit with a more colorful palette. Each member of the family is a caricature of their infamous selves and stylistically imbues the spooky, ooky, kookiest versions we would expect. Backed by an incredible amount of supporting voice talent such as Bette Midler, Martin Short, and Snoop-Dog as everyone’s favorite fuzzy cousin…It, it’s a star-studded event that even the most die-hard Addams Family purist will enjoy.
The story goes through typical tropes that we’ve seen played out a thousand times already. A misunderstood family is misjudged by their neighbors, only to come together in the end. It’s a story about celebrating our differences and learning to appreciate what makes each of us unique. In a world of social media, cell phones and television shows that try to make us all conform, it teaches us that while people may look and act different than us, they all bring something special to the table. It’s this light-heartedness and sweet story telling which while not unique is something that I feel we need more of in the world today.
The Addams Family is a film for the entire family, there is light-hearted violence, but all done in jest with no one ever getting hurt. While it doesn’t bring anything unexpected to the table, its still enjoyable and a film that doesn’t ever attempt to take itself seriously. It won’t win any best picture awards, and likely will become another 30 days of Halloween past-time when it makes its way to television, it is still one that will leave you with a smile on your face long after it is over. The experience you get from it, will likely be based on the audience reaction to the film. In the theater I was in, there was lots of laughter, snapping and even a sing-along at the end. It’s a movie to see with other people, and even if you aren’t a fan of the TV series, it will still offer you something. Sometimes a simple movie, with a simple message, is exactly the escape we need from everything in the world today. The Addams Family makes a perfect escape for the entire family this Halloween Season.
3.5 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/10/10/the-addams-family/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“And the Oscar goes to”… (or should go to)… “Dame Emma Thompson”.
Given my last review was for “The Equalizer 2“, where Denzel was judge, jury and executioner, it’s a nice seque that this film follows the life of a senior judge in London’s Law Courts: trying to do the justice job, but in the right way!
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 12, 2022
Too Long Of a Setup for a Terrific Payoff
The rap on the films of the DCEU - especially the films directed by Zach Snyder - is that they are too dark, dour and a “downer”, with very little joy or sunshine in the images or themes.
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Ill-kept Oath in Books
May 16, 2018
Actual Rating: 3.5 Stars
Set in the early 1800s, The Ill-Kept Oath is a cross between historical fantasy and paranormal romance, though it leans heavily in the latter of the two genres for the majority of the novel. Prudence Fairfeather and her brother Edward are orphans taken in by Lord Middlemere. Raised as nobility, Prudence has nothing to her name and must wed well for her future. Her cousin, Josephine Weston, is Lord Middlemere’s only child and, a couple years younger than Prudence, also finds herself in the path of a relationship that, though she desperately wishes, is beneath her. As if the stress of needing to marry wasn’t enough, the two discover that they have the Inheritance, which is, more or less, magic that has been passed on through the generations. Both girls are also recipients of Talismans that once belonged to their mothers and these items appear to have a gravitational pull that neither girl can withstand, which lands them in trouble on more than one account. In addition to romance and magic, there are trolls, rebellious magic users, and a very real reason for Prudence to fear for her very life, lending a sense of urgency to the book.
That sense of urgency is not dealt with in a timely manner though, it seems. While I adored reading The Ill-Kept Oath, I can’t help but feel that there were moments in which the book simply dragged on. Granted, I’m not much of a fan of romance and what truly piqued my interest in regards to this book was the idea of magic and rebellion, two topics that I am most definitely a large fan of. These two subjects, though largely used in the book’s description, are almost minor elements in comparison to Prudence’s debut for the London Season. In fact, the main conflict of the book itself seems to take a backseat to the romance side of the story which, while bittersweet in its telling, might strike the reader as something that ought to come second to the fact that there are trolls rampaging around the countryside.
It isn’t until near the end of the book that things begin to pick up and start falling into place. Here we learn that the romance side of things play a very important, unseen role in a vile plot to rebel against laws put in place several years prior. Without giving away spoilers, the parts of the book that we slag through are all, despite how mundane they appear, vital to the situation that unfolds. Every element finds a way of coming together, and there are certainly moments that, as I read them, I was able to appreciate the earlier, seemingly pointless interactions of characters. In that regard, I must commend C. C. Aune’s ability to implement small pieces of seemingly pointless knowledge that are, in fact, pivotal to the story. With that in mind, even without being a fan of romance, I was able to at least appreciate Prudence’s involvement in the Marriage Mart.
One of the things I actually liked about The Ill-Kept Oath is the depth to each of its characters. Unlike many of the books that I’ve read lately where the characters are one-dimensional with no point of existence except to fill a certain role and none other, the characters that Aune has breathed life into are colorful and real. Josephine is sixteen, on the cusp of adulthood, and bears the qualities of a teen-aged girl, soon to be woman, that we expect to see, from immaturity to accepting the changes in her own feelings and emotions. Prudence has just crossed into adulthood, and as a reader I was able to sense and truly feel her reluctance to accept a marriage out of necessity, rather than love. Her frustration, and her way of deflecting offers, are not merely glazed over, but written with depth. Even Edward, Prudence’s brother, shows the awkwardness to be expected of a young man still in university that has, unfortunately, developed some less than favorable emotions.
I really wish that more had been explained about the Inheritance and that there wasn’t so much left open to guessing. I assume this is something that will be more fully addressed later on, assuming there will be a sequel, and if that is the case I certainly look forward to reading it. What The Ill-Kept Oath gives us is a mere glimpse into a dark, dark world with many secrets left to be uncovered. A place where things happen with little care for the results, as long as an end is obtained. Overall, I enjoyed the book, though I feel that the story could have had a heavier focus on the magical side of things, along with a quicker pace.
Finally, I would like to offer a heart-felt thanks to Netgalley, Wise Ink Creative Publishing, and C. C. Aune for an advanced copy of The Ill-Kept Oath in exchange for an unbiased review.
Set in the early 1800s, The Ill-Kept Oath is a cross between historical fantasy and paranormal romance, though it leans heavily in the latter of the two genres for the majority of the novel. Prudence Fairfeather and her brother Edward are orphans taken in by Lord Middlemere. Raised as nobility, Prudence has nothing to her name and must wed well for her future. Her cousin, Josephine Weston, is Lord Middlemere’s only child and, a couple years younger than Prudence, also finds herself in the path of a relationship that, though she desperately wishes, is beneath her. As if the stress of needing to marry wasn’t enough, the two discover that they have the Inheritance, which is, more or less, magic that has been passed on through the generations. Both girls are also recipients of Talismans that once belonged to their mothers and these items appear to have a gravitational pull that neither girl can withstand, which lands them in trouble on more than one account. In addition to romance and magic, there are trolls, rebellious magic users, and a very real reason for Prudence to fear for her very life, lending a sense of urgency to the book.
That sense of urgency is not dealt with in a timely manner though, it seems. While I adored reading The Ill-Kept Oath, I can’t help but feel that there were moments in which the book simply dragged on. Granted, I’m not much of a fan of romance and what truly piqued my interest in regards to this book was the idea of magic and rebellion, two topics that I am most definitely a large fan of. These two subjects, though largely used in the book’s description, are almost minor elements in comparison to Prudence’s debut for the London Season. In fact, the main conflict of the book itself seems to take a backseat to the romance side of the story which, while bittersweet in its telling, might strike the reader as something that ought to come second to the fact that there are trolls rampaging around the countryside.
It isn’t until near the end of the book that things begin to pick up and start falling into place. Here we learn that the romance side of things play a very important, unseen role in a vile plot to rebel against laws put in place several years prior. Without giving away spoilers, the parts of the book that we slag through are all, despite how mundane they appear, vital to the situation that unfolds. Every element finds a way of coming together, and there are certainly moments that, as I read them, I was able to appreciate the earlier, seemingly pointless interactions of characters. In that regard, I must commend C. C. Aune’s ability to implement small pieces of seemingly pointless knowledge that are, in fact, pivotal to the story. With that in mind, even without being a fan of romance, I was able to at least appreciate Prudence’s involvement in the Marriage Mart.
One of the things I actually liked about The Ill-Kept Oath is the depth to each of its characters. Unlike many of the books that I’ve read lately where the characters are one-dimensional with no point of existence except to fill a certain role and none other, the characters that Aune has breathed life into are colorful and real. Josephine is sixteen, on the cusp of adulthood, and bears the qualities of a teen-aged girl, soon to be woman, that we expect to see, from immaturity to accepting the changes in her own feelings and emotions. Prudence has just crossed into adulthood, and as a reader I was able to sense and truly feel her reluctance to accept a marriage out of necessity, rather than love. Her frustration, and her way of deflecting offers, are not merely glazed over, but written with depth. Even Edward, Prudence’s brother, shows the awkwardness to be expected of a young man still in university that has, unfortunately, developed some less than favorable emotions.
I really wish that more had been explained about the Inheritance and that there wasn’t so much left open to guessing. I assume this is something that will be more fully addressed later on, assuming there will be a sequel, and if that is the case I certainly look forward to reading it. What The Ill-Kept Oath gives us is a mere glimpse into a dark, dark world with many secrets left to be uncovered. A place where things happen with little care for the results, as long as an end is obtained. Overall, I enjoyed the book, though I feel that the story could have had a heavier focus on the magical side of things, along with a quicker pace.
Finally, I would like to offer a heart-felt thanks to Netgalley, Wise Ink Creative Publishing, and C. C. Aune for an advanced copy of The Ill-Kept Oath in exchange for an unbiased review.
Mothergamer (1568 KP) rated Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp in Apps
Apr 3, 2019
I don't really play a lot of games on my phone. I did play Pokemon Go for a while, but got a little burned out on it. The only other games I really play on my phone are Words With Friends, Crosswords With Friends, and Neko Atsume. That last one is a game with cats so of course it's on my phone since I am a cat lover.
When I heard Nintendo was working on Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp a game for mobile devices and that it would be free to play, I was excited. I love the Animal Crossing games because they are cheerful and fun with activities you could do such as fishing, redecorating your house in various themes, or interacting with the animal villagers in town.
With Pocket Camp there isn't a town. Instead, you have your own RV and your own campsite which you can decorate any way you wish. You can make friends with various animal characters and receive gifts and crafting materials for them when you trade them things they want such as certain types of seashells. They can also visit your campsite as well as your human friends via invitation or at random. There are different recreational areas you can visit on the world map such as a beach where you can fish or a little island where you can collect insects. There's even an area for mining, but you need the help of five people on your friends list or pay a certain amount of microtransaction currency known as leaf tickets. You can also visit a place called OK Motors where you can upgrade your RV, add an upstairs to it, or paint it in interesting patterns and colors.
Getting around on the map is easy. Click on a place and go.
Fishing is one of the recreational activities you can do.
Crafting is another big thing in Pocket Camp. You can gather materials such as cotton and wood for crafting furniture by fulfilling requests for your animal friends like gifting them with types of fruit or seashells they want. This not only levels up your friendship with them, they will gift you with crafting materials and sometimes outfits. They will also hang out at your campsite when you invite them. The maximum amount of animals you can host at your campsite is ten. You can also send animals home via the user menu so that you can invite new animals to your campsite.
Host animals at your campsite, do favors, receive gifts.
If you're in the mood to do a little shopping, there is a marketplace you can travel to on the map. You can buy outfits and accessories from the Able sisters or you can buy furniture from Timmy and Tommy Nook, Tom Nook's twin sons. You can also sell furniture and outfits from your inventory to the Nook twins.
Doing a little shopping at the marketplace.
Personally, I liked decorating my RV and adding a second floor. Crafting the furniture and items for my little traveling home was fun and I enjoyed decorating it the way I wanted. I liked decorating the campsite as well especially after I expanded it so I could add more items for visitors to enjoy.
Decorating your RV is fun!
There are daily goals and stretch goals you can do that offer crafting materials, leaf tickets, or bells (the name of the money used in the game) as rewards. You can also visit your friends campsites to see how they decorate theirs and give them kudos when you visit. I thought it was very cool seeing how much variety there is in each of the campsites I visited and showed the uniqueness and style of each of my friends.
Visit your friends campsites. It's fun!
Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp is relaxing fun. There's no pressure or time limits. You can just enjoy yourself doing what you wish whether it's fishing or hanging out with your animal and human friends at your campsite. It's cute and colorful with a variety of things to craft and outfits to collect. Some may think it's a bit repetitive, but I don't mind that part of it. It's nice to log in and get my daily bonus, do a few things I like, and see what changes my friends have made to their campsites.
With it being the holiday season, Nintendo did a Christmas update for the game. You can now craft Christmas items, a Santa Claus outfit, and Christmas gifts. It has been fun decorating my campsite for Christmas and seeing all the Christmas cheer at my friends' campsites. I'm looking forward to the next seasonal event items they do. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the Christmas items and the entire game itself.
When I heard Nintendo was working on Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp a game for mobile devices and that it would be free to play, I was excited. I love the Animal Crossing games because they are cheerful and fun with activities you could do such as fishing, redecorating your house in various themes, or interacting with the animal villagers in town.
With Pocket Camp there isn't a town. Instead, you have your own RV and your own campsite which you can decorate any way you wish. You can make friends with various animal characters and receive gifts and crafting materials for them when you trade them things they want such as certain types of seashells. They can also visit your campsite as well as your human friends via invitation or at random. There are different recreational areas you can visit on the world map such as a beach where you can fish or a little island where you can collect insects. There's even an area for mining, but you need the help of five people on your friends list or pay a certain amount of microtransaction currency known as leaf tickets. You can also visit a place called OK Motors where you can upgrade your RV, add an upstairs to it, or paint it in interesting patterns and colors.
Getting around on the map is easy. Click on a place and go.
Fishing is one of the recreational activities you can do.
Crafting is another big thing in Pocket Camp. You can gather materials such as cotton and wood for crafting furniture by fulfilling requests for your animal friends like gifting them with types of fruit or seashells they want. This not only levels up your friendship with them, they will gift you with crafting materials and sometimes outfits. They will also hang out at your campsite when you invite them. The maximum amount of animals you can host at your campsite is ten. You can also send animals home via the user menu so that you can invite new animals to your campsite.
Host animals at your campsite, do favors, receive gifts.
If you're in the mood to do a little shopping, there is a marketplace you can travel to on the map. You can buy outfits and accessories from the Able sisters or you can buy furniture from Timmy and Tommy Nook, Tom Nook's twin sons. You can also sell furniture and outfits from your inventory to the Nook twins.
Doing a little shopping at the marketplace.
Personally, I liked decorating my RV and adding a second floor. Crafting the furniture and items for my little traveling home was fun and I enjoyed decorating it the way I wanted. I liked decorating the campsite as well especially after I expanded it so I could add more items for visitors to enjoy.
Decorating your RV is fun!
There are daily goals and stretch goals you can do that offer crafting materials, leaf tickets, or bells (the name of the money used in the game) as rewards. You can also visit your friends campsites to see how they decorate theirs and give them kudos when you visit. I thought it was very cool seeing how much variety there is in each of the campsites I visited and showed the uniqueness and style of each of my friends.
Visit your friends campsites. It's fun!
Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp is relaxing fun. There's no pressure or time limits. You can just enjoy yourself doing what you wish whether it's fishing or hanging out with your animal and human friends at your campsite. It's cute and colorful with a variety of things to craft and outfits to collect. Some may think it's a bit repetitive, but I don't mind that part of it. It's nice to log in and get my daily bonus, do a few things I like, and see what changes my friends have made to their campsites.
With it being the holiday season, Nintendo did a Christmas update for the game. You can now craft Christmas items, a Santa Claus outfit, and Christmas gifts. It has been fun decorating my campsite for Christmas and seeing all the Christmas cheer at my friends' campsites. I'm looking forward to the next seasonal event items they do. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the Christmas items and the entire game itself.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Unfaithful: The Deception of Night in Books
May 23, 2019
As I look back at Unfaithful, all I can think is wow. This book had some unexpected twists and turns, that leave you breathless and riddled with anxiety. It was a nice continuation from the first book with some real anxiety ridden situations. I loved that we got to see more of the others: Ginerva, Simon, and Drake. I loved getting to know these character more. However, I found that not everything as it seems to be. I guess that is to be expected when you are dating an Angel of Death. I also enjoyed learning more about how the Evan and his brothers are created and chosen. There was so much information in this book, that at times it was hard to absorb it all, while continuing the story without pausing to take a moment to think about what you just read.
Let me first discuss Evan. Though we don't see a whole bunch from his point of view this time around, it was definitely nice to learn about his past and how his kind works. Although, I wished we could have had more of him in the book, it was nice to learn more about the others in his family. I think I really enjoyed learning about how he met each member in his family after his death. I also very much enjoyed learning about how each member had an impact on the others. Seeing how he was saved by a Witch, Ginerva, who was with Simon, was amazing to see. I also enjoyed him explaining how the forbidden fruit that Eve ate was the same that gave Evan and his kind the nutrition they needed to stay alive and how without consuming it they would just end up dead, instead of becoming the angels they were destined to become to pay their way into Eden.
Evan had even explained some of his family to Gemma, which helped shed a new light on them. I believe what little information was given, really helped give these characters a better feel. It made you feel sorry or sad for how things had come to be. To even see how close to Gemma that they had grown to be, was a pleasant sight to see. It made the character intertwine together better than before. However, with Drake's crazy antics and the ever threatening danger around the corner, you can't help but wonder what was really going on.
At one point, you are introduces to Eden and the details to describe it left you breathless. I can't help but wonder if my imagination even done it justice. I believe the details were amazing and definitely breathtaking. However, I think even with the details, that I would have loved to see more of it. Though it was very hard to believe such a place could exist, after all it is supposed to be our Heaven, I think I would have definitely needed to see more to be satisfied. This is on of the things in the book that made me want more of it, knowing I may never be able to visit it again.
--This next part is a spoiler so please read at your own risk.--
I have to say that the ending with Evan dying has me extremely upset. I am not sure what happened and even now I am sitting her unsure of what happened. I had cried out in frustration. It was definitely not a satisfying ending. With what Gemma tells Evan as he dies, and what happens with their supposed threat, I can't help but count down the minutes until I can start the next book. This book definitely gave me lots to think about. For example, how nothing is certain in life. There are many things, people and situations that can lead you to the wrong conclusions or paths to take. I feel this book had given so many things to be processed and though about, that people could easily lose themselves in thought, just from the situations, like deception, and ideas of places unseen by us alone.
Overall I would rate this book five stars out of five stars. It was breathtaking, detailed, and kept you in suspense. There were a few very sweet moments that made you long for romance like that in your personal life, but kept everything in the right perspective. I definitely think that I learned that I should live to the fullest, for you never know when death is waiting for you. I think this series has been amazing so far and can't wait to finish it. It definitely makes you want more and with and ending that doesn't answer the important questions, it definitely feels like the cliffhanger at the end of your favorite show to keep you waiting for the next season to figure out what the next thing is going to be.
Let me first discuss Evan. Though we don't see a whole bunch from his point of view this time around, it was definitely nice to learn about his past and how his kind works. Although, I wished we could have had more of him in the book, it was nice to learn more about the others in his family. I think I really enjoyed learning about how he met each member in his family after his death. I also very much enjoyed learning about how each member had an impact on the others. Seeing how he was saved by a Witch, Ginerva, who was with Simon, was amazing to see. I also enjoyed him explaining how the forbidden fruit that Eve ate was the same that gave Evan and his kind the nutrition they needed to stay alive and how without consuming it they would just end up dead, instead of becoming the angels they were destined to become to pay their way into Eden.
Evan had even explained some of his family to Gemma, which helped shed a new light on them. I believe what little information was given, really helped give these characters a better feel. It made you feel sorry or sad for how things had come to be. To even see how close to Gemma that they had grown to be, was a pleasant sight to see. It made the character intertwine together better than before. However, with Drake's crazy antics and the ever threatening danger around the corner, you can't help but wonder what was really going on.
At one point, you are introduces to Eden and the details to describe it left you breathless. I can't help but wonder if my imagination even done it justice. I believe the details were amazing and definitely breathtaking. However, I think even with the details, that I would have loved to see more of it. Though it was very hard to believe such a place could exist, after all it is supposed to be our Heaven, I think I would have definitely needed to see more to be satisfied. This is on of the things in the book that made me want more of it, knowing I may never be able to visit it again.
--This next part is a spoiler so please read at your own risk.--
I have to say that the ending with Evan dying has me extremely upset. I am not sure what happened and even now I am sitting her unsure of what happened. I had cried out in frustration. It was definitely not a satisfying ending. With what Gemma tells Evan as he dies, and what happens with their supposed threat, I can't help but count down the minutes until I can start the next book. This book definitely gave me lots to think about. For example, how nothing is certain in life. There are many things, people and situations that can lead you to the wrong conclusions or paths to take. I feel this book had given so many things to be processed and though about, that people could easily lose themselves in thought, just from the situations, like deception, and ideas of places unseen by us alone.
Overall I would rate this book five stars out of five stars. It was breathtaking, detailed, and kept you in suspense. There were a few very sweet moments that made you long for romance like that in your personal life, but kept everything in the right perspective. I definitely think that I learned that I should live to the fullest, for you never know when death is waiting for you. I think this series has been amazing so far and can't wait to finish it. It definitely makes you want more and with and ending that doesn't answer the important questions, it definitely feels like the cliffhanger at the end of your favorite show to keep you waiting for the next season to figure out what the next thing is going to be.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated War of the Worlds (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a summer season of grand blockbusters, War of the Worlds” is perhaps the biggest dud in years, and is a failure of epic proportions. The film is a remake of the classic 1953 film of the same name which like the new one is inspired from the H.G. Wells novel of 1898.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
The Illusion of Choice
Contains spoilers, click to show
I should preface this review by saying a few things. First of all, I don't like Black Mirror. I have watched a handful of episodes from the first season and always felt like it wasn't as clever as it tried to be. I do however like Charlie Brooker, I am a fan of his 'Wipe,' shows and I like his no bullshit personality. Lastly, I am not a fan of games or books where the audience is asked to choose the path they want to take. I believe that the writer of the movie/game/book should be the one to dictate where the story goes, not Joe Bloggs sitting on his couch covered in Doritos powder.
With all of that said, I decided to give Bandersnatch a go last night. I was intrigued by the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept and did go in wanting to like this thing. Unfortunately, following all the hype that surrounded its release a few weeks ago, I came away pretty disappointed.
As for my spoiler free thoughts, I thought that Will Poulter was the best thing about this film and that Fionn Whitehead's performance was okay, but felt forced and cheesy at times. However, in order to discuss why Bandersnatch ultimately left me disappointed, I am going to have to spoil the movie, so if you haven't went through it for yourself yet, you should probably look away now.
3,2,1... SPOILERS!
So, it turns out that the choices that you make while watching the film don't really matter for the most part. After spending 2-3 hours with it, I discovered that there are only really 2 endings. Either Stefan kills his dad or he goes to the therapist and she breaks the fourth wall. Every other ending is not really an ending and forces you back into the last situation until you make the choice that the filmmakers clearly want you to make.
As we are pretty much controlling Stefan during the course of the story, I chose to pick the best decisions for him, rather than choosing the more cruel, sick settings just to see what would happen. However Bandersnatch doesn't want you to do that and as soon as you make one of these more pacifist decisions, it punishes you by giving you an anticlimactic non-ending and sends you back to your last decision. Being forced to make these destructive choices forces you down the narrative path set out by the writers to the two endings that I discussed earlier and that's your lot. That's really all that there is to see here other than a few surplus arbitrary scenes.
The only things that you really get to decide on is trivial nonsense that has no impact on the narrative, like what cereal to eat or what record to buy. So, why bother making this a choose-your-own-adventure story in the first place rather than just a regular episode of Black Mirror? Because, if this was just a regular episode of a TV show, it would be extremely fucking boring, monotonous and trite.
The show tries to defend itself in these aspects. It insinuates the idea that just as we are controlling Stefan and forcing him to make certain decisions, Charlie Brooker as the writer is controlling us and forcing us to make certain decisions, hence the absence of any real choice for the viewer. I call bullshit on this idea, it's just down to lazy writing to be honest. When the therapist breaks the fourth wall, she also suggests that if this was a TV show that someone was watching for entertainment, it would have to be more exciting and less bland and dull. Pointing out that your show is bland and dull doesn't save it from being just as fucking bland and dull as it would be if you hadn't highlighted it in your script.
The show puts these elements in so that when it is questioned, it can respond saying that you as an audience member are just not clever enough to get it. Unfortunately the fact is that Bandersnatch, - just like Black Mirror - before it, isn't as clever or as cool as it thinks it is and works far better as an idea than it does in execution.
Overall, that's what this is; it's a cool idea executed poorly. I really wish that they had done more with it. It does seem to be a hit though, so for better or worse we can probably expect to see more and more of these crop up on Netflix. Will Poulter was the one saving grace of this thing and he inexplicably vanishes halfway through the story in most of the threads. It did get a reaction out of me though, which is probably what Brooker and his team wanted, it was just an extremely negative reaction due to the realisation that I had wasted my time going through this thing. If you like Black Mirror, you will probably enjoy this, but I'm afraid that it's just not for me.
With all of that said, I decided to give Bandersnatch a go last night. I was intrigued by the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept and did go in wanting to like this thing. Unfortunately, following all the hype that surrounded its release a few weeks ago, I came away pretty disappointed.
As for my spoiler free thoughts, I thought that Will Poulter was the best thing about this film and that Fionn Whitehead's performance was okay, but felt forced and cheesy at times. However, in order to discuss why Bandersnatch ultimately left me disappointed, I am going to have to spoil the movie, so if you haven't went through it for yourself yet, you should probably look away now.
3,2,1... SPOILERS!
So, it turns out that the choices that you make while watching the film don't really matter for the most part. After spending 2-3 hours with it, I discovered that there are only really 2 endings. Either Stefan kills his dad or he goes to the therapist and she breaks the fourth wall. Every other ending is not really an ending and forces you back into the last situation until you make the choice that the filmmakers clearly want you to make.
As we are pretty much controlling Stefan during the course of the story, I chose to pick the best decisions for him, rather than choosing the more cruel, sick settings just to see what would happen. However Bandersnatch doesn't want you to do that and as soon as you make one of these more pacifist decisions, it punishes you by giving you an anticlimactic non-ending and sends you back to your last decision. Being forced to make these destructive choices forces you down the narrative path set out by the writers to the two endings that I discussed earlier and that's your lot. That's really all that there is to see here other than a few surplus arbitrary scenes.
The only things that you really get to decide on is trivial nonsense that has no impact on the narrative, like what cereal to eat or what record to buy. So, why bother making this a choose-your-own-adventure story in the first place rather than just a regular episode of Black Mirror? Because, if this was just a regular episode of a TV show, it would be extremely fucking boring, monotonous and trite.
The show tries to defend itself in these aspects. It insinuates the idea that just as we are controlling Stefan and forcing him to make certain decisions, Charlie Brooker as the writer is controlling us and forcing us to make certain decisions, hence the absence of any real choice for the viewer. I call bullshit on this idea, it's just down to lazy writing to be honest. When the therapist breaks the fourth wall, she also suggests that if this was a TV show that someone was watching for entertainment, it would have to be more exciting and less bland and dull. Pointing out that your show is bland and dull doesn't save it from being just as fucking bland and dull as it would be if you hadn't highlighted it in your script.
The show puts these elements in so that when it is questioned, it can respond saying that you as an audience member are just not clever enough to get it. Unfortunately the fact is that Bandersnatch, - just like Black Mirror - before it, isn't as clever or as cool as it thinks it is and works far better as an idea than it does in execution.
Overall, that's what this is; it's a cool idea executed poorly. I really wish that they had done more with it. It does seem to be a hit though, so for better or worse we can probably expect to see more and more of these crop up on Netflix. Will Poulter was the one saving grace of this thing and he inexplicably vanishes halfway through the story in most of the threads. It did get a reaction out of me though, which is probably what Brooker and his team wanted, it was just an extremely negative reaction due to the realisation that I had wasted my time going through this thing. If you like Black Mirror, you will probably enjoy this, but I'm afraid that it's just not for me.