Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mulan (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
"Dishonour on you! Dishonour on your cow!" This is probably the only thing from Mulan that I can identify beyond some of the characters. I think that's generally how Disney goes though, they become viral so easily that you recognise things without ever having seen the films... even worse in this case though... I actually own it but took myself to the cinema to see it anyway. If you're gonna do it you've gotta do it right because it doesn't matter how close I sit to the 50 inch TV at home it's not like watching it on the big screen.
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
There's a definite fatigue now with films based on music stars and their works, I was already feeling it earlier in the year with Yesterday and Blinded By The Light. While I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about seeing Judy the trailer had me as soon as I heard "Somewhere over the rainbow".
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Lithium in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Lithium by Asina C is not the typical book style that comes to mind when I think about a fiction book based in Chernobyl. Normally I would expect such a book to be full of zombies or mutants who go around terrorizing a group of tourist that get lost but that is not the case with Lithium. Instead, this book mixes truth with science and a little bit of fantasy and gives readers a different type of story altogether. This book also talks about the Red Forest in Chernobyl and it sparked an interest in me to look up some pictures of the forest. I also did not notice too much that widely away from the actual facts about Chernobyl, though I would by no means consider myself to be well informed on the subject.
Zurin has lived with her mother for all of her twelve years in a small shack in Pripyat. Her mother has always kept Zurin inside her home for fear of radiation sickness and being seen. This is in part because the area in which they live is believed to be uninhabitable because of all the radiation still in everything following the explosion. Zurin has always been obedient to her mothers rules until one day when her mother goes to get supplies and Zurin decides to step outside for the first time but may have been seen by someone.
Then one day, shortly after her birthday Zurin wakes up to find her mother gone and blood on the floor. Zurin then ventures out into the Red Forest in search of her mother but gets extremely lost and succumbs to radiation sickness. Luckily she is found by a young couple who work for a travel company and snuck into a restricted area of Chernobyl to take pictures for their website. The couple takes Zurin to the hospital and adopts her once she gets better. As fate would have it months later Zurin returns to Pripyat in search of her mother yet again and finds herself in an abandoned hospital. It is in this hospital that she learns the truth about her mother and her life up to this point. Her only hope is to team up with a doctor she is not completely trusting of, the young couple, and a man she has never met before.
What I liked best was the idea of people still being able to live in a highly irradiated area such as Pripyat with few side effects was interesting. The book also offered some mystery as to who Zurin and her mother are and why they chose to continue to live in an isolated area such a Pripyat. What I liked least was a little more complicated. I understand the fact that people exposed to nuclear radiation and or uranium may mutate both physically and/or mentally if they survive. What I did not understand was Nikolavs goal by purposefully mutating the patients who survived the explosion but were trapped in the mental ward of the hospital.
This is definitely a young adult book, but for many, after high school, I feel like it would quickly lose its strong appeal. It is a good book but I feel like it would need to be a little more detailed, making the book a bit longer in order for it to have more of an appeal to adults. I ended up rating this book a 2 out of 4. This is because while I enjoy books set around Chernobyl (especially if mutated people or zombies are involved because it offers a plausible explanation for it) this book fell short of my expectations. One of the main issues I had was how the book fails to give solid reasoning and jumps from one topic to another.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/lithium
Zurin has lived with her mother for all of her twelve years in a small shack in Pripyat. Her mother has always kept Zurin inside her home for fear of radiation sickness and being seen. This is in part because the area in which they live is believed to be uninhabitable because of all the radiation still in everything following the explosion. Zurin has always been obedient to her mothers rules until one day when her mother goes to get supplies and Zurin decides to step outside for the first time but may have been seen by someone.
Then one day, shortly after her birthday Zurin wakes up to find her mother gone and blood on the floor. Zurin then ventures out into the Red Forest in search of her mother but gets extremely lost and succumbs to radiation sickness. Luckily she is found by a young couple who work for a travel company and snuck into a restricted area of Chernobyl to take pictures for their website. The couple takes Zurin to the hospital and adopts her once she gets better. As fate would have it months later Zurin returns to Pripyat in search of her mother yet again and finds herself in an abandoned hospital. It is in this hospital that she learns the truth about her mother and her life up to this point. Her only hope is to team up with a doctor she is not completely trusting of, the young couple, and a man she has never met before.
What I liked best was the idea of people still being able to live in a highly irradiated area such as Pripyat with few side effects was interesting. The book also offered some mystery as to who Zurin and her mother are and why they chose to continue to live in an isolated area such a Pripyat. What I liked least was a little more complicated. I understand the fact that people exposed to nuclear radiation and or uranium may mutate both physically and/or mentally if they survive. What I did not understand was Nikolavs goal by purposefully mutating the patients who survived the explosion but were trapped in the mental ward of the hospital.
This is definitely a young adult book, but for many, after high school, I feel like it would quickly lose its strong appeal. It is a good book but I feel like it would need to be a little more detailed, making the book a bit longer in order for it to have more of an appeal to adults. I ended up rating this book a 2 out of 4. This is because while I enjoy books set around Chernobyl (especially if mutated people or zombies are involved because it offers a plausible explanation for it) this book fell short of my expectations. One of the main issues I had was how the book fails to give solid reasoning and jumps from one topic to another.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/lithium
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Parental Guidance (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I don’t really know where to start with this review. I guess I’ll start with what I’m expecting to see when I see a preview. I’m really bad at assuming I know what’s going to happen. Sometimes I’m right, happily sometimes I’m wrong, and then there are times, like with this movie, where it’s half and half.
The movie starts out with Artie Decker (Billy Crystal) as ‘de voice’ of his local Grizzlies’ baseball team. He’s really good at commentating and he loves doing it but after the last game of the season he gets fired. It’s predictable why he’s fired, basically he doesn’t poke or tweet, and I think they thought they hit gold with that moment of comedy but for me, eh. When he gets home his wife Diane (Bette Midler) comforts him. He’s lost for a moment since he wasn’t ready to stop but then decides he should chase his dream to commentate for the Giants though he doesn’t know where to start.
We shoot over to Alice Simmons (Marisa Tomei) Artie and Diane’s daughter, and her husband Phil, (Tom Everett Scott) who live in such a modern electronic home that it’s actually all controlled by a beta system called Rlife. Rlife can be programmed for alarm times, music, food, pretty much everything for each family member. This Rlife is Phil’s dream he gets invited to a conference to get his Rlife hopefully in production. Alice is going to with him, kind of a semi work vacation and they need Artie and Diane to watch the kids for a week.
What makes the divide even greater between Alice and her kids from Artie is that Alice and Phil are raising their kids in a new school that is different from Artie’s old school, tough love and strict rules. They use phrases like ‘use your words’ or if you give a ‘put down’ you have to give ‘three ups’ and you can’t use the word ‘no’ you have to say ‘think about the consequences’.
Their oldest, a young teen, is their only daughter Harper, Bailee Madison, who is extremely uptight and carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. Next we have the two boys, Turner, Joshua Rush, middle schooler, who stutters and is shy because of it, and the youngest Barker, Kyle Harrison Breitkopf, who is basically toddler with lots of energy, but seems to get away with a lot of bad behavior.
Diane realizes that they are the other grand parents, the ones that their grand kids don’t really like. Long story short, it’s supposed to be about being open to new ideas but it just feels like old school versus new school. Billy’s Crystal’s comedy and Bette Middler’s and Marisa Tomei’s acting can pull it out of the boredom for some laughs and good moments and there are a few situational laughs with the children as well, but that’s about it.
The truly redeeming quality to this movie, besides the three main actors is the ending, the last ten minutes. It’s a surprising heartwarming ending, and only slightly predictable. It sounds crazy but it actually brings the whole movie up from a two star to a three star for me. One last thing is that the guest I went with has two children of her own and tried to get me to change my rating from three to four. I really can’t do that but I think that means that if you have children of your own you might enjoy this a little bit more than I did.
Bottom line, renter, unless you love Bily Crystal.
The movie starts out with Artie Decker (Billy Crystal) as ‘de voice’ of his local Grizzlies’ baseball team. He’s really good at commentating and he loves doing it but after the last game of the season he gets fired. It’s predictable why he’s fired, basically he doesn’t poke or tweet, and I think they thought they hit gold with that moment of comedy but for me, eh. When he gets home his wife Diane (Bette Midler) comforts him. He’s lost for a moment since he wasn’t ready to stop but then decides he should chase his dream to commentate for the Giants though he doesn’t know where to start.
We shoot over to Alice Simmons (Marisa Tomei) Artie and Diane’s daughter, and her husband Phil, (Tom Everett Scott) who live in such a modern electronic home that it’s actually all controlled by a beta system called Rlife. Rlife can be programmed for alarm times, music, food, pretty much everything for each family member. This Rlife is Phil’s dream he gets invited to a conference to get his Rlife hopefully in production. Alice is going to with him, kind of a semi work vacation and they need Artie and Diane to watch the kids for a week.
What makes the divide even greater between Alice and her kids from Artie is that Alice and Phil are raising their kids in a new school that is different from Artie’s old school, tough love and strict rules. They use phrases like ‘use your words’ or if you give a ‘put down’ you have to give ‘three ups’ and you can’t use the word ‘no’ you have to say ‘think about the consequences’.
Their oldest, a young teen, is their only daughter Harper, Bailee Madison, who is extremely uptight and carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. Next we have the two boys, Turner, Joshua Rush, middle schooler, who stutters and is shy because of it, and the youngest Barker, Kyle Harrison Breitkopf, who is basically toddler with lots of energy, but seems to get away with a lot of bad behavior.
Diane realizes that they are the other grand parents, the ones that their grand kids don’t really like. Long story short, it’s supposed to be about being open to new ideas but it just feels like old school versus new school. Billy’s Crystal’s comedy and Bette Middler’s and Marisa Tomei’s acting can pull it out of the boredom for some laughs and good moments and there are a few situational laughs with the children as well, but that’s about it.
The truly redeeming quality to this movie, besides the three main actors is the ending, the last ten minutes. It’s a surprising heartwarming ending, and only slightly predictable. It sounds crazy but it actually brings the whole movie up from a two star to a three star for me. One last thing is that the guest I went with has two children of her own and tried to get me to change my rating from three to four. I really can’t do that but I think that means that if you have children of your own you might enjoy this a little bit more than I did.
Bottom line, renter, unless you love Bily Crystal.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Mermaid, the Witch and the Sea in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Thank you to Netgalley and Walker books for providing this ARC in exchange for an honest review.
I chose this book simply based on the synopsis and the gorgeous cover art. I expected it to be a standard YA read, perhaps edging on middle grade but wow was I wrong! This novel contains all the gritty bits of a Pirate’s life and is as far from Neverland pirates and mermaids as you can get.
The Mermaid, the Witch and the Sea centres around the relationship between a high-born, queer, Japanese-inspired noblewoman, Evelyn and a pirate named Florian who is secretly a girl named Flora, disguising themself in order to gain the respect of their crew mates.
Evelyn and Florian instantly capture the heart of the reader. They are such an unlikely match and from completely different worlds but the way that Maggie Tokuda-Hall throws these two characters together and alternates chapters between their perspectives is so compelling. The secret attraction and the pining between Evelyn and Florian can literally be felt through the pages. These two are guaranteed to stay with you long after the book is finished.
In fact, the majority of Tokuda-Hall’s cast of characters are so well developed: we have Rake, the first mate who is a very closed character and keeps his own intentions close to his chest for most of the novel. We have a gender-fluid Pirate Supreme, an imperialist noblewoman who can kick ass and Flora’s brother Alfie, a tortured soul whose traumatic past is alluded to often.
The portrayal of mermaids in the novel is nothing short of inspired: hunted and captured for the properties their blood possesses, mermaids are quite ugly when imprisoned by pirates. These mythical creatures that are renowned for their beauty are only conventionally beautiful in the presence of their loving mother: The Sea. The Sea in turn will do whatever she can to protect her children, and will always reward those who help.
The other pirates are, as you would expect, a group of shady characters but they do not fade into the background at all. Tokuda-Hall reveals right from the beginning the true intentions of this crew and it creates an underlying tension throughout the whole voyage upon The Dove. The twists, secrets and revelations onboard that ship are captivating and create a page-turning first half of the book.
I will say that during the middle of the book, mainly during “The Witch” section, the pace slowed dramatically and it just didn’t flow as much.
I almost wanted more treachery and more suspense from the witch, more struggle by Evelyn and, dare I say, more pining from Evelyn and Florian. Their relationship up to this point had been so intense and slow burning that it almost seemed to cool a little.
I also feel that not quite enough was made of Evelyn’s discovery about the real reason behind her voyage. It was almost a convenient way for that side of her story to be resolved. Similarly, with Florian/Flora; their evolution from Pirate to Witch seemed quite acceptable and tame.
These factors, in my opinion, affected the ending of the novel where everything seemed quite rushed in its efforts to tie up all loose ends. Please don’t misunderstand, I LOVED the ending and how Evelyn and Flora/Florian finished their journey. I even shed a few tears. However, it was the lead up to this that just seemed too convenient and too quick.
Overall this is a wonderfully dark pirate novel that instantly creates a world full of magic and wonder whilst tackling the issues of identity, colonialism, homophobia, poverty and rape. A world where gender-fluid and queer characters fight against injustice alongside endangered mermaids and the Sea is to be respected almost as a deity.
I cannot believe that this is merely Maggie Tokuda-Hall’s debut novel! I cannot wait to see where she takes us next!
I chose this book simply based on the synopsis and the gorgeous cover art. I expected it to be a standard YA read, perhaps edging on middle grade but wow was I wrong! This novel contains all the gritty bits of a Pirate’s life and is as far from Neverland pirates and mermaids as you can get.
The Mermaid, the Witch and the Sea centres around the relationship between a high-born, queer, Japanese-inspired noblewoman, Evelyn and a pirate named Florian who is secretly a girl named Flora, disguising themself in order to gain the respect of their crew mates.
Evelyn and Florian instantly capture the heart of the reader. They are such an unlikely match and from completely different worlds but the way that Maggie Tokuda-Hall throws these two characters together and alternates chapters between their perspectives is so compelling. The secret attraction and the pining between Evelyn and Florian can literally be felt through the pages. These two are guaranteed to stay with you long after the book is finished.
In fact, the majority of Tokuda-Hall’s cast of characters are so well developed: we have Rake, the first mate who is a very closed character and keeps his own intentions close to his chest for most of the novel. We have a gender-fluid Pirate Supreme, an imperialist noblewoman who can kick ass and Flora’s brother Alfie, a tortured soul whose traumatic past is alluded to often.
The portrayal of mermaids in the novel is nothing short of inspired: hunted and captured for the properties their blood possesses, mermaids are quite ugly when imprisoned by pirates. These mythical creatures that are renowned for their beauty are only conventionally beautiful in the presence of their loving mother: The Sea. The Sea in turn will do whatever she can to protect her children, and will always reward those who help.
The other pirates are, as you would expect, a group of shady characters but they do not fade into the background at all. Tokuda-Hall reveals right from the beginning the true intentions of this crew and it creates an underlying tension throughout the whole voyage upon The Dove. The twists, secrets and revelations onboard that ship are captivating and create a page-turning first half of the book.
I will say that during the middle of the book, mainly during “The Witch” section, the pace slowed dramatically and it just didn’t flow as much.
I almost wanted more treachery and more suspense from the witch, more struggle by Evelyn and, dare I say, more pining from Evelyn and Florian. Their relationship up to this point had been so intense and slow burning that it almost seemed to cool a little.
I also feel that not quite enough was made of Evelyn’s discovery about the real reason behind her voyage. It was almost a convenient way for that side of her story to be resolved. Similarly, with Florian/Flora; their evolution from Pirate to Witch seemed quite acceptable and tame.
These factors, in my opinion, affected the ending of the novel where everything seemed quite rushed in its efforts to tie up all loose ends. Please don’t misunderstand, I LOVED the ending and how Evelyn and Flora/Florian finished their journey. I even shed a few tears. However, it was the lead up to this that just seemed too convenient and too quick.
Overall this is a wonderfully dark pirate novel that instantly creates a world full of magic and wonder whilst tackling the issues of identity, colonialism, homophobia, poverty and rape. A world where gender-fluid and queer characters fight against injustice alongside endangered mermaids and the Sea is to be respected almost as a deity.
I cannot believe that this is merely Maggie Tokuda-Hall’s debut novel! I cannot wait to see where she takes us next!
JusTalk - simple video calling
Social Networking
App
JusTalk is a FREE high-quality video and voice calling app for everyone - simple, reliable, secure...
Amnesia: Memories Premium Edition
Entertainment
App
The Premium Edition, which includes all the scenarios, as well as the new one, is available at...
The Weather Station by The Weather Station
Album Watch
On her fourth (and tellingly self-titled) album as The Weather Station, Tamara Lindeman reinvents,...
alternative folk rock
KidloLand: Kids Nursery Rhymes
Education and Games
App
KidloLand is an award-winning app for kids (1-5 yrs) with 1000+ nursery rhymes, songs, games and...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).