Search
Debbiereadsbook (1097 KP) rated Two For The Road in Books
Jan 28, 2019
I loved this bookj!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Dylan saw Riley when he was just 15, Riley was suited and booted and Dylan fell in love. At 22, Dylan manages to wrangle to lift to work with Riley, in an effort to get his man. Because Riley is HIS: Riley just needs to see it too. But Riley is 20 years older than Dylan, and Dylan's dad's best fried, even if a bit estranged. Coming back to the village he was born to spend time with his dying father was a shock to Riley's system, but a much needed one. Leaving his partner of 20 years not so much of a shock as a revelation of just what had been going on behind his back for the bigger part of that relationship. Dylan is a breath of fresh air to Riley, who is lonely after his dad passed away. Chatting on the 45 minute drive to work every day brings the two men closer, and when Dylan finally declares his intention to make Riley his, all Riley thinks about is what would Dylan's dad think. Can Riley get past the age gap?
I started reading this and I was liking it. It was shaping up nicely for a 4 star rating. Not loving, just really enjoying it. And then SOMETHING! I've no idea what happened, or who said what, but something happened and I began to LOVE this book! I loved it from that point!
Dylan is young, yes, but he is old enough to know what he wants, more importantly, WHO he wants, and Dylan WANTS Riley. Riley is his and no one else's and Dylan will fight for Riley, even if Riley is scared and worried and all those negative feelings. When Dylan finds out why Riley is scared (not cos of the age gap, that's mentioned a lot!) Dylan steps up his advances a notch and poor Riley doesn't stand a chance. But Dylan's dad catches them, and Riley pushes Dylan away, running at the first hurdle. Dylan though, he doesn't. He'll wait til Riley comes round, cos he WILL come round, just as Dylan's dad will. And they do, wonderfully.
This is one of those books that you just fall into and inhale, you know?? Not too complicated, but you have to pick up the clues about Riley's past relationship. It's not overly explicit, but it is incredibly sexy, especially when Riley's experience is bought to light, even with being in a 20 year relationship (I did NOT like that man!) There is angst and turmoil, but it's not too heavy. Just enough for you to shed a tear when Riley breaks down and cries for what could have been with Dylan.
This really is a warm and fuzzies slash too stinking cute book! It also seems to be the first I've read of Milne, so my wish list is now a little longer.
So!
5 full and shiny and COLOURFUL stars (because after 20 years of white, Riley needs colour)
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Dylan saw Riley when he was just 15, Riley was suited and booted and Dylan fell in love. At 22, Dylan manages to wrangle to lift to work with Riley, in an effort to get his man. Because Riley is HIS: Riley just needs to see it too. But Riley is 20 years older than Dylan, and Dylan's dad's best fried, even if a bit estranged. Coming back to the village he was born to spend time with his dying father was a shock to Riley's system, but a much needed one. Leaving his partner of 20 years not so much of a shock as a revelation of just what had been going on behind his back for the bigger part of that relationship. Dylan is a breath of fresh air to Riley, who is lonely after his dad passed away. Chatting on the 45 minute drive to work every day brings the two men closer, and when Dylan finally declares his intention to make Riley his, all Riley thinks about is what would Dylan's dad think. Can Riley get past the age gap?
I started reading this and I was liking it. It was shaping up nicely for a 4 star rating. Not loving, just really enjoying it. And then SOMETHING! I've no idea what happened, or who said what, but something happened and I began to LOVE this book! I loved it from that point!
Dylan is young, yes, but he is old enough to know what he wants, more importantly, WHO he wants, and Dylan WANTS Riley. Riley is his and no one else's and Dylan will fight for Riley, even if Riley is scared and worried and all those negative feelings. When Dylan finds out why Riley is scared (not cos of the age gap, that's mentioned a lot!) Dylan steps up his advances a notch and poor Riley doesn't stand a chance. But Dylan's dad catches them, and Riley pushes Dylan away, running at the first hurdle. Dylan though, he doesn't. He'll wait til Riley comes round, cos he WILL come round, just as Dylan's dad will. And they do, wonderfully.
This is one of those books that you just fall into and inhale, you know?? Not too complicated, but you have to pick up the clues about Riley's past relationship. It's not overly explicit, but it is incredibly sexy, especially when Riley's experience is bought to light, even with being in a 20 year relationship (I did NOT like that man!) There is angst and turmoil, but it's not too heavy. Just enough for you to shed a tear when Riley breaks down and cries for what could have been with Dylan.
This really is a warm and fuzzies slash too stinking cute book! It also seems to be the first I've read of Milne, so my wish list is now a little longer.
So!
5 full and shiny and COLOURFUL stars (because after 20 years of white, Riley needs colour)
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Debbiereadsbook (1097 KP) rated Ramen Assassin (Ramen Assassin #1) in Books
Jun 28, 2019
Fabulous new series from Ford!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
When Trey witnesses a dead body being dragged into a van, and then he gets shot at, he never thought the guy who has invaded his dreams would be the one to save him. He makes noodles all day, how can the man possibly pack more fire power than the bad guys, huh? Kuro thought he had left all that behind in the blaze of bullets that followed him to the embassy. But no, here he is, standing over the cute guy who comes in most days, shooting at the bad guys trying to shoot Trey. And then someone shoots at him. And Kuro sees red. Someone has to stand up for Trey, cos his own sister won't!
You never EVER know, from reading a Ford blurb, which way a book will go. You all do it, you read a blurb and your brain goes, Yup, thats what is gonna happen and then you start reading and whatever you had in mind goes right up in smoke!
so, Devastating? check. Emotional? check. Deadly? Murderous? check. Sexy? check, check and check!
I loved Kuro and Trey, both together and seperately. The way their stories mesh together is brilliant. I loved that they had both been eyeing each other up, but neither one wanted to make a move. The fact that Kuro let Trey sit at the back table every time he came in, had not gone unnoticed by his staff. The eyes Trey made at Kuro had not gone unnoticed either.
Trey's history could be any child star in today's world. A rise to fame, from a very young age, and a meteoric fall from grace that left him in everyone's bad books, his family especially. I hated his sister! She was so mean to Trey right when Trey needed her, and when Kuro takes up his case, Kuro gives Trey's sister such a piece of his mind, it's a wonder the woman wasn't reduced a pile of goo!
The whodunnit is a long winded (and long planned out!) and complicated plot, and I loved how it all went down!
This is billed as book one in the Ramen Assassin series. I have no idea whether Kuro and Trey will be the centre of each book, or some of Kuro's associates will be, I don't really care, to be honest! I just wanna read them!
And oh! The food! The food Kuro cooks sounds so yummy! Even when he does what I would call a "cupboard dinner" basically, whatever was in Trey's cupboards and fridge, it was yum! I was drooling, for God's sake! I can only hope Ms Ford does some sort of recipe thing with the book tour, I will have to switch the ramen for rice noodles, but Lord, PULEEEEZE let there be recipes!
I love Rhys Ford, you know I do, and I have so MISSED the way she spins her tales! One sitting read, 200 odd pages, 2.5 hours, and boom! More, I need more!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
When Trey witnesses a dead body being dragged into a van, and then he gets shot at, he never thought the guy who has invaded his dreams would be the one to save him. He makes noodles all day, how can the man possibly pack more fire power than the bad guys, huh? Kuro thought he had left all that behind in the blaze of bullets that followed him to the embassy. But no, here he is, standing over the cute guy who comes in most days, shooting at the bad guys trying to shoot Trey. And then someone shoots at him. And Kuro sees red. Someone has to stand up for Trey, cos his own sister won't!
You never EVER know, from reading a Ford blurb, which way a book will go. You all do it, you read a blurb and your brain goes, Yup, thats what is gonna happen and then you start reading and whatever you had in mind goes right up in smoke!
so, Devastating? check. Emotional? check. Deadly? Murderous? check. Sexy? check, check and check!
I loved Kuro and Trey, both together and seperately. The way their stories mesh together is brilliant. I loved that they had both been eyeing each other up, but neither one wanted to make a move. The fact that Kuro let Trey sit at the back table every time he came in, had not gone unnoticed by his staff. The eyes Trey made at Kuro had not gone unnoticed either.
Trey's history could be any child star in today's world. A rise to fame, from a very young age, and a meteoric fall from grace that left him in everyone's bad books, his family especially. I hated his sister! She was so mean to Trey right when Trey needed her, and when Kuro takes up his case, Kuro gives Trey's sister such a piece of his mind, it's a wonder the woman wasn't reduced a pile of goo!
The whodunnit is a long winded (and long planned out!) and complicated plot, and I loved how it all went down!
This is billed as book one in the Ramen Assassin series. I have no idea whether Kuro and Trey will be the centre of each book, or some of Kuro's associates will be, I don't really care, to be honest! I just wanna read them!
And oh! The food! The food Kuro cooks sounds so yummy! Even when he does what I would call a "cupboard dinner" basically, whatever was in Trey's cupboards and fridge, it was yum! I was drooling, for God's sake! I can only hope Ms Ford does some sort of recipe thing with the book tour, I will have to switch the ramen for rice noodles, but Lord, PULEEEEZE let there be recipes!
I love Rhys Ford, you know I do, and I have so MISSED the way she spins her tales! One sitting read, 200 odd pages, 2.5 hours, and boom! More, I need more!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022
I don't like to go into a film with a negative impression... but... #NotMyPoirot #SlashTheStash.
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Zombie Strippers (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the not too distant future where George Bush has somehow fluked his way into another term as president, a chemo-virus has broken out in a small town. The Z-Squad is sent in to eliminate the problem, but a member of the squad gets infected and flees. He manages to to find refuge in an underground strip club, which has also been deemed illegal by the government of the future. The soldier takes a turn for the worse and finds himself a member of the undead only to take the club's biggest star as his first victim. She continues to dance and the odd thing is...the customers love it. Zombie strippers are the new sex appeal. As the money piles up, so do the victims. Will the chemo-virus continue to spread and if so...how will it be contained?
First of all, don't be confused. This is movie is one of the cheesiest films ever. I almost turned it off several times and I honestly can't tell you why I'm reviewing this thing. The sad thing is it's like a trainwreck in slow motion. You can't look away from it once you start watching and you have to see not only how it's going to end, but who's going to make it out alive. Not that you really care, but you wonder whose really deemed worthy of surviving said trainwreck. It is ludicrous, ridiculous, and absurd...but it's amusing as hell.
How ridiculous is it? Let's see...strippers being turned into zombies and becoming super strippers, zombies being sexy, having the most stereotypical Mexican janitor...ever, the casts biggest names being Jenna Jameson and Robert Englund, special effects you'd find in Xena: Warrior Princess, a Christian stripping for her nanna, Jenna Jameson shooting ping pong balls and pool balls out her...well...I'll let you see that for yourself, angry dragons, and foamy chewbaccas...the list goes on and on. I'm sure I missed so many more. The sad thing is that despite being the cheesiest of cheese and being as bad as it is, there's still a few good things buried under the cheese. It's kind of like an enchilada made with cheap cheese. All the cheap stuff is on the outside, but there's some good stuff on the inside. The most obvious being that there's a lot of nudity in this, which is good because it'll probably be one of the only things that'll keep anyone watching. Robert Englund's over the top performance as the germophobic strip club owner is pretty memorable. Also, the make-up effects are surprisingly good at times. The special effects are horrid, but the make-up is actually better than you think it'd be.
In a film as ridiculously cheesy as this, I can't blame anyone if they turn it off before it reaches the half hour mark. The thing is though if you stick with it, it's actually enjoyable because it's so bad. It's cheesy, it's amusing, the acting is so bad that you'll be quoting it for days, the plot is pointless, and it even has a weak attempt at a twist in the ending! My point is that it's a bad film and I'm not defending it, but if you manage to sit through the whole thing...you may find yourself enjoying parts of it like I did.
First of all, don't be confused. This is movie is one of the cheesiest films ever. I almost turned it off several times and I honestly can't tell you why I'm reviewing this thing. The sad thing is it's like a trainwreck in slow motion. You can't look away from it once you start watching and you have to see not only how it's going to end, but who's going to make it out alive. Not that you really care, but you wonder whose really deemed worthy of surviving said trainwreck. It is ludicrous, ridiculous, and absurd...but it's amusing as hell.
How ridiculous is it? Let's see...strippers being turned into zombies and becoming super strippers, zombies being sexy, having the most stereotypical Mexican janitor...ever, the casts biggest names being Jenna Jameson and Robert Englund, special effects you'd find in Xena: Warrior Princess, a Christian stripping for her nanna, Jenna Jameson shooting ping pong balls and pool balls out her...well...I'll let you see that for yourself, angry dragons, and foamy chewbaccas...the list goes on and on. I'm sure I missed so many more. The sad thing is that despite being the cheesiest of cheese and being as bad as it is, there's still a few good things buried under the cheese. It's kind of like an enchilada made with cheap cheese. All the cheap stuff is on the outside, but there's some good stuff on the inside. The most obvious being that there's a lot of nudity in this, which is good because it'll probably be one of the only things that'll keep anyone watching. Robert Englund's over the top performance as the germophobic strip club owner is pretty memorable. Also, the make-up effects are surprisingly good at times. The special effects are horrid, but the make-up is actually better than you think it'd be.
In a film as ridiculously cheesy as this, I can't blame anyone if they turn it off before it reaches the half hour mark. The thing is though if you stick with it, it's actually enjoyable because it's so bad. It's cheesy, it's amusing, the acting is so bad that you'll be quoting it for days, the plot is pointless, and it even has a weak attempt at a twist in the ending! My point is that it's a bad film and I'm not defending it, but if you manage to sit through the whole thing...you may find yourself enjoying parts of it like I did.
AmyBee (4 KP) rated Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices in Books
Sep 6, 2018
This is a well entertaining book, packed full of some of the most bonkers things that people apparently do to one another in the bedroom. And the garden, and at work etc etc.
Prior to being given this book (unironically, by the most sexually adventurous man I've ever had the pleasure of...ahem.. moving swiftly on.), anyway, before he gave it to me (fnar!!) I always thought that I was pretty clued-up and knowledgeable when it came to matters of the naughty bits, but committing ruderies isn't *just* all about getting your kit off and bumping uglies...oh no... there are acts described between these sheets (of the book!!) that will make your eyes pop out.
Other body parts may also begin to protrude, if your personal kink features here (and if it doesn't, then you must be into some UBER freaky deaky shizz! .. and I'd like to meet you! *winkyface*)
.
I was a tad shocked to find that I hadn't heard of one or two of the "entries" (fnar) which is something that I didn't think at all likely before I opened it up (fnarrr). I'm not claiming to be the goddess of sex by any means but I was thrown right off guard by concepts such as "Taphephilia" which refers to "those who are aroused by being buried alive" ...
erm, say what now??
Do these people actually exist because quite frankly, that sounds made up.
Who am I kidding, we all know full well that there are some strange, strange people out there and if you think about it, you can't deny the fact that there truly isn't one single thing in existence that *doesn't* sexually arouse somebody, somewhere.
As the saying goes "there's no accounting for taste" and that has never been truer, as you will learn by page 4 at the latest.
On the flip side of all the strange and sexy fun and games (and criminal offences), there are some totally mundane entries. Along with describing all the more familiar concepts such as "bisexualism" and sex organs and all our favourite hanky-panky positions, there is also a (somewhat outdated) list of contraceptive methods. Given that the book was first published in 1992 however, I think the archaic qualities of the publication can be forgiven.
The "150+ Original Illustrations" are referenced several times at the beginning, as well as in the sub-title, but honestly, don't get too excited about this.
A porno mag in disguise it definitely isn't.
If you don't go in expecting visual titillation then you shouldn't be *too* disappointed when your expectations are not only met, but exceeded. the sketches ('cos that's all they really are), are crude (but not at all in the fun sense of the word), bland and banal in the extreme. Calling them "original" was a nice bit of editorial sneakiness, that's for sure.
I see what you did there Brenda Love (if she's not a 70's porn star, then that name is TOTALLY wasted on her, amirite?
There are some bad drawings of penises, vaginas in various states of open-ness but there's an equal amount of "Bush" in all examples. This is an outstanding example of the book's old age as we all know, pubic hair was rendered extinct circa 2001AD, so a picture of it in 2018 outside of a museum is likely to cause widespread confusion.
Overall, this is a hugely entertaining and informative book for anyone interested in anything at all to do with sex, which realistically, is the majority of us to some extent (everyone else is probably lying through their teeth).
Also a good reference book for budding sexologists (such as me), wannabe sex therapists (although a degree is probably also required for this profession), or anyone working in any part of the sex industry. (experience equals qualifications).
Prior to being given this book (unironically, by the most sexually adventurous man I've ever had the pleasure of...ahem.. moving swiftly on.), anyway, before he gave it to me (fnar!!) I always thought that I was pretty clued-up and knowledgeable when it came to matters of the naughty bits, but committing ruderies isn't *just* all about getting your kit off and bumping uglies...oh no... there are acts described between these sheets (of the book!!) that will make your eyes pop out.
Other body parts may also begin to protrude, if your personal kink features here (and if it doesn't, then you must be into some UBER freaky deaky shizz! .. and I'd like to meet you! *winkyface*)
.
I was a tad shocked to find that I hadn't heard of one or two of the "entries" (fnar) which is something that I didn't think at all likely before I opened it up (fnarrr). I'm not claiming to be the goddess of sex by any means but I was thrown right off guard by concepts such as "Taphephilia" which refers to "those who are aroused by being buried alive" ...
erm, say what now??
Do these people actually exist because quite frankly, that sounds made up.
Who am I kidding, we all know full well that there are some strange, strange people out there and if you think about it, you can't deny the fact that there truly isn't one single thing in existence that *doesn't* sexually arouse somebody, somewhere.
As the saying goes "there's no accounting for taste" and that has never been truer, as you will learn by page 4 at the latest.
On the flip side of all the strange and sexy fun and games (and criminal offences), there are some totally mundane entries. Along with describing all the more familiar concepts such as "bisexualism" and sex organs and all our favourite hanky-panky positions, there is also a (somewhat outdated) list of contraceptive methods. Given that the book was first published in 1992 however, I think the archaic qualities of the publication can be forgiven.
The "150+ Original Illustrations" are referenced several times at the beginning, as well as in the sub-title, but honestly, don't get too excited about this.
A porno mag in disguise it definitely isn't.
If you don't go in expecting visual titillation then you shouldn't be *too* disappointed when your expectations are not only met, but exceeded. the sketches ('cos that's all they really are), are crude (but not at all in the fun sense of the word), bland and banal in the extreme. Calling them "original" was a nice bit of editorial sneakiness, that's for sure.
I see what you did there Brenda Love (if she's not a 70's porn star, then that name is TOTALLY wasted on her, amirite?
There are some bad drawings of penises, vaginas in various states of open-ness but there's an equal amount of "Bush" in all examples. This is an outstanding example of the book's old age as we all know, pubic hair was rendered extinct circa 2001AD, so a picture of it in 2018 outside of a museum is likely to cause widespread confusion.
Overall, this is a hugely entertaining and informative book for anyone interested in anything at all to do with sex, which realistically, is the majority of us to some extent (everyone else is probably lying through their teeth).
Also a good reference book for budding sexologists (such as me), wannabe sex therapists (although a degree is probably also required for this profession), or anyone working in any part of the sex industry. (experience equals qualifications).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We’re trudging through the slush”.
Unlike its animated namesake, “The Snowman” is not a good film. Frustratingly it has all the right ingredients:
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The most fun you can have with Jack Black’s penis.
In 1995, Joe Johnston (“The Rocketeer”, “Captain America: The First Avenger”) directed “Jumanji” – a quirky, fantastical and dark film starring the late, great Robin Williams that got a rough critical reception at the time of release, but was embraced by the public and has gone on to be a modern classic. So when it was announced that a sequel was in the works 22 years later, my first reaction was “Oh no… is nothing sacred?”. It’s fair to say that I went into this flick with extremely low expectations.
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 8, 2019
"war is coming to the surface"
Aquaman is absolutely a disciple of the superhero formula we've seen used, reused and recycled over the past couple decades...but its formula done right. There's an inherent lunacy to a hero like Aquaman; his myth is built upon a lost Atlantean culture that's simultaneously advanced technologically and heavily influenced by ancient Greek mythology, and his powers included near-Superman levels of strength and invulnerability existing alongside an ability to communicate with marine life. This makes approaching his story from a gritty, realistic perspective damn near impossible.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Debbiereadsbook (1097 KP) rated Lionhearts: Part Two Box Set in Books
Mar 21, 2019
nice easy reads.
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of these books.
Into The Arena
Cesare has been banished from his pride after his uncle cheated in a leadership fight. Finding work on a food truck headed from a for set seemed too good to be true. Finding Hayden as the star AND his fated mate, made Cesare think that maybe he wasn't supposed to win the fight at all. But Hayden has a stalker, and things turn deadly. Can Cesare keep his human mate safe, and will Hayden accept Cesare's lion half?
This is book 4 in the Lionhearts series and I have not read the other books. I did not feel I was missing anything, and so will say these are stand alones, with interconnecting characters, rather than a follow on series.
I liked this one. It did not blow me away, but right now, personally, this was JUST what I needed to read.
It's well told, with both Cesare and Hayden having a say. There is enough history for each of them, but not enough to be overwhelming in a short book. Well, I say SHORT, but it's still 176 pages! Didn't feel like it though!
I loved that we got some of the stalker too! They have their say in a couple of places, and I do love getting into the mind of the baddie! Did NOT see who that might have been, or rather, I had an idea, but was way off base.
It's quite sexy. There is a scene with Hayden getting down and dirty with his boyfriend BEFORE he and Cesare meet. Then Hayden and Cesare get down to it really quickly after meeting! Not sure how I feel about the first, but loved the second.
Nice easy read, and just the thing to pass a wet sunday afternoon, while nursing a very real hangover!
4 solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Pride Under Fire
Book 5 in the Lionheart series, and there is a pop up from Cesare and Hayden (book 4) which was nice!
Connor punched his commanding officer, and is shifted out to a town in the middle of nowhere, that needs a full time fire fighter. Andy is a detective in said town. Andy is human, Connor is not. Can Connor keep his mate safe, while the town burns around them?
Again, an easy read, that was just what I needed!
Connor knows he did wrong, punching his superior, but he won't apologise. Being shipped out was probably the best thing that happened to him, since he meets his mate. But Andy is human and lions don't mate with humans, do they?When there are several fires in town, in abandoned buildings, both Connor and Andy have to investigate. Then the bodies start piling up, and they know the arsonist has to be stopped , and soon.
There were several throw away comments that made me put the clues together for who the arsonist was very early on, and it was great to see it unfold the way I thought it would.
Again, the guys get down and dirty very early on, and I did like that here.
BUT
The general way the story goes is almost identical to book 4, Into The Arena. It's very VERY similar in that the human half gets taken, and the lion half comes to the rescue, mostly in the same way too!
Still, I did enjoy this as much as book 4, and I did read them back to back.
4 stars
Animal Passions
This is book 6 and for ME, the weakest of the three I've read.
Here's why:
It follows an almost identical plot line to the other two. Human half has sex with *someone* then goes off and meets mate. Mate and human get down and dirty right quick (did not like that here!) danger threatens human, lion reveals himself. human is taken by *stalker/arsonist/psycho editor assistant* and lion comes to the rescue. the end.
So, I'm sorry, but no, this one did not work for me. I only gave it 3 stars because I DID finish it, and it was touch and go for a while.
Maybe if I had NOT read them back to back, this one would have worked better, but I did read them back to back, and this is how I feel. And I'm all about the book feelings.
Sorry!
3 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Into The Arena
Cesare has been banished from his pride after his uncle cheated in a leadership fight. Finding work on a food truck headed from a for set seemed too good to be true. Finding Hayden as the star AND his fated mate, made Cesare think that maybe he wasn't supposed to win the fight at all. But Hayden has a stalker, and things turn deadly. Can Cesare keep his human mate safe, and will Hayden accept Cesare's lion half?
This is book 4 in the Lionhearts series and I have not read the other books. I did not feel I was missing anything, and so will say these are stand alones, with interconnecting characters, rather than a follow on series.
I liked this one. It did not blow me away, but right now, personally, this was JUST what I needed to read.
It's well told, with both Cesare and Hayden having a say. There is enough history for each of them, but not enough to be overwhelming in a short book. Well, I say SHORT, but it's still 176 pages! Didn't feel like it though!
I loved that we got some of the stalker too! They have their say in a couple of places, and I do love getting into the mind of the baddie! Did NOT see who that might have been, or rather, I had an idea, but was way off base.
It's quite sexy. There is a scene with Hayden getting down and dirty with his boyfriend BEFORE he and Cesare meet. Then Hayden and Cesare get down to it really quickly after meeting! Not sure how I feel about the first, but loved the second.
Nice easy read, and just the thing to pass a wet sunday afternoon, while nursing a very real hangover!
4 solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Pride Under Fire
Book 5 in the Lionheart series, and there is a pop up from Cesare and Hayden (book 4) which was nice!
Connor punched his commanding officer, and is shifted out to a town in the middle of nowhere, that needs a full time fire fighter. Andy is a detective in said town. Andy is human, Connor is not. Can Connor keep his mate safe, while the town burns around them?
Again, an easy read, that was just what I needed!
Connor knows he did wrong, punching his superior, but he won't apologise. Being shipped out was probably the best thing that happened to him, since he meets his mate. But Andy is human and lions don't mate with humans, do they?When there are several fires in town, in abandoned buildings, both Connor and Andy have to investigate. Then the bodies start piling up, and they know the arsonist has to be stopped , and soon.
There were several throw away comments that made me put the clues together for who the arsonist was very early on, and it was great to see it unfold the way I thought it would.
Again, the guys get down and dirty very early on, and I did like that here.
BUT
The general way the story goes is almost identical to book 4, Into The Arena. It's very VERY similar in that the human half gets taken, and the lion half comes to the rescue, mostly in the same way too!
Still, I did enjoy this as much as book 4, and I did read them back to back.
4 stars
Animal Passions
This is book 6 and for ME, the weakest of the three I've read.
Here's why:
It follows an almost identical plot line to the other two. Human half has sex with *someone* then goes off and meets mate. Mate and human get down and dirty right quick (did not like that here!) danger threatens human, lion reveals himself. human is taken by *stalker/arsonist/psycho editor assistant* and lion comes to the rescue. the end.
So, I'm sorry, but no, this one did not work for me. I only gave it 3 stars because I DID finish it, and it was touch and go for a while.
Maybe if I had NOT read them back to back, this one would have worked better, but I did read them back to back, and this is how I feel. And I'm all about the book feelings.
Sorry!
3 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 4, 2019 (Updated May 4, 2019)
Surprisingly Strong Chemistry Between The Leads
Quite a few people that I have spoken with don't like either Charlize Theron or Seth Rogan as performers, so the idea of a pairing of the straight-laced, uptight politician played by Theron and the shlubby, weed-smoking slacker played by Rogan was like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)