Search
David McK (3692 KP) rated The Matrix Resurrections (2021) in Movies
Feb 9, 2022 (Updated Oct 1, 2023)
Unnecessary sequel
Summer of 1999.
Pre Millennium.
Just at the start of our current high-tech always-on society.
And The Matrix was released, becoming hugely influential in the process and popularising the concept of 'bullet time'.
Both the sequels (Reloaded and Revolutions) were released during 'the year of the Matrix' in 2003, doubling down on the philosophical ponderings of the first movie (in particular, during Reloaded, with the whole still-to-this-day confusing Architect scenes), with Revolutions also seemingly leaving the trilogy with nowhere to go.
Until nearly 20 years later, when one of the two Wachowski siblings decided to resurrect both Neo and Trinity in this.
I's very much a film of two halves, with the first half in particular hugely self-referential (lots of nods and winks to the audience, and even clips from the earlier films shown on TV screens within the movie), while the second half settles down more into your standard action fare.
Whilst enjoyable enough, it lacks anything to match the sheer pizzaz of the first movie, or even the Freeway chase/burly brawl/chateau fight from the second or the Neo Vs Smith showdown in the third.
Pre Millennium.
Just at the start of our current high-tech always-on society.
And The Matrix was released, becoming hugely influential in the process and popularising the concept of 'bullet time'.
Both the sequels (Reloaded and Revolutions) were released during 'the year of the Matrix' in 2003, doubling down on the philosophical ponderings of the first movie (in particular, during Reloaded, with the whole still-to-this-day confusing Architect scenes), with Revolutions also seemingly leaving the trilogy with nowhere to go.
Until nearly 20 years later, when one of the two Wachowski siblings decided to resurrect both Neo and Trinity in this.
I's very much a film of two halves, with the first half in particular hugely self-referential (lots of nods and winks to the audience, and even clips from the earlier films shown on TV screens within the movie), while the second half settles down more into your standard action fare.
Whilst enjoyable enough, it lacks anything to match the sheer pizzaz of the first movie, or even the Freeway chase/burly brawl/chateau fight from the second or the Neo Vs Smith showdown in the third.
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Wayward Girls in Books
Oct 4, 2022
181 of 230
Book
The Wayward Girls
By Amanda Mason
⭐️⭐️⭐️
THEN
1976. Loo and her sister Bee live in a run-down cottage in the middle of nowhere, with their artistic parents and wild siblings. Their mother, Cathy, had hoped to escape to a simpler life; instead the family find themselves isolated and shunned by their neighbours. At the height of the stifling summer, unexplained noises and occurences in the house begin to disturb the family, until they intrude on every waking moment . . .
NOW
Loo, now Lucy, is called back to her childhood home. A group of strangers are looking to discover the truth about the house and the people who lived there. But is Lucy ready to confront what really happened all those years ago?
It was ok I was completely engrossed for the first 3/4 of the book I was enjoying the ghost story and the happenings but then they lost me at the end. I just didn’t like the ending much at all it could have gone in so many directions. It was very much like the Enfield story. Overall it was a ok read and didnt take long to get through.
Book
The Wayward Girls
By Amanda Mason
⭐️⭐️⭐️
THEN
1976. Loo and her sister Bee live in a run-down cottage in the middle of nowhere, with their artistic parents and wild siblings. Their mother, Cathy, had hoped to escape to a simpler life; instead the family find themselves isolated and shunned by their neighbours. At the height of the stifling summer, unexplained noises and occurences in the house begin to disturb the family, until they intrude on every waking moment . . .
NOW
Loo, now Lucy, is called back to her childhood home. A group of strangers are looking to discover the truth about the house and the people who lived there. But is Lucy ready to confront what really happened all those years ago?
It was ok I was completely engrossed for the first 3/4 of the book I was enjoying the ghost story and the happenings but then they lost me at the end. I just didn’t like the ending much at all it could have gone in so many directions. It was very much like the Enfield story. Overall it was a ok read and didnt take long to get through.
First Born: The Preevitt Chronicles
6.0
Rate It
Book
She thought that life in a new town would be boring; boy, was she wrong! Fifteen-year-old Ruth...
Urban Fantasy
Paige (277 KP) rated Wynonna Earp - Season 1 in TV
Jun 27, 2022
Storyline (4 more)
Acting
Characters Development
Reference to History
LGBTQIA+ Inclusion
Wynonna Earp - Season 1
Wynonna Earp - Season 1 is highly recommended ✔️
Throughout the first Season of Wynonna Earp, we are able to gain an extensive insight into the lives of Waverley and Wynonna Earp; sisters. They are cursed and teach us of the importance of family, but also of following yourself independently.
Emily Andras has beautifully captured a storyline that will follow Wynonna and Waverley for many more seasons. Despite being siblings, their upbringings and characteristics are vastly different which permit an addictive dynamic.
The LGBTQIA+ inclusion is a thing that is uncomparable to anything else that has been broadcasted on such a significant platform. We are able to follow Waverleys discovery of her own identity, and understand the significance of self acceptance.
In regards to the storyline itself, and the correspondence between Western History, Wynonna Earp references the lives of the notorious Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday.
To conclude, Wynonna Earp - Season 1 and its consequential seasons are highly recommended, the storyline, historical reference and chemistry between the cast makes this series unmissable.
Throughout the first Season of Wynonna Earp, we are able to gain an extensive insight into the lives of Waverley and Wynonna Earp; sisters. They are cursed and teach us of the importance of family, but also of following yourself independently.
Emily Andras has beautifully captured a storyline that will follow Wynonna and Waverley for many more seasons. Despite being siblings, their upbringings and characteristics are vastly different which permit an addictive dynamic.
The LGBTQIA+ inclusion is a thing that is uncomparable to anything else that has been broadcasted on such a significant platform. We are able to follow Waverleys discovery of her own identity, and understand the significance of self acceptance.
In regards to the storyline itself, and the correspondence between Western History, Wynonna Earp references the lives of the notorious Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday.
To conclude, Wynonna Earp - Season 1 and its consequential seasons are highly recommended, the storyline, historical reference and chemistry between the cast makes this series unmissable.
The Sherlock Society
8.0
Rate It
Book
In the tradition of Nancy Drew, four kids and one grandfather in Miami tackle a decades-old mystery...
What Remains is Hope (The Heppenheimer Family Holocaust Saga #2)
Book
Beginning in 1930s Germany and based on their real lives, four cousins as close as...
World War II Historical Fiction
A Murder Most Fowl
5.0
Rate It
Book
A food truck run by twins serves up a clucking good murder in this cozy debut mystery, perfect for...
Becca Major (96 KP) rated The Nutcracker Prince (1990) in Movies
Jan 20, 2018
Decent writing (3 more)
Good animation
Semi-active heroine
Loyal to the book
Dance sequence, especially the Pas de Deux (3 more)
Music placement
Weak and confusing ending
Marie
The Nutcracker Prince
Contains spoilers, click to show
Summary:
The Nutcracker Prince is an enjoyable little children's movie that is a strange mashup of the novel by E.T.A. Hoffman and the popular ballet. The story is fairly simple and follows Clara as she interacts with her family at the yearly Christmas party, where she and her siblings receive the titular Nutcracker from their Uncle Drosselmeyer, as well as a golden castle. He then proceeds to tell Clara about the Nutcracker’s backstory. Then Fritz, Clara’s little brother, breaks the Nutcracker and she scolds him.
Later that night, the Mouse King attacks, attempting to kill the Nutcracker, and Clara watches the toys do battle with the Mouse King’s army. Clara ends up tripping and hurting herself, which makes her bedridden. During this time, Fritz brings her a partially eaten box of chocolates, which she puts in her nightstand drawer. Later that night, the Mouse King approaches her and threatens her. Clara offers him the box of chocolates and when he hops in the drawer to eat them, she shuts him in. She runs downstairs to protect the Nutcracker, which transitions to the second attack of the Mouse King and his army. The toys and mice battle, and eventually the Nutcracker runs the Mouse King through (off-screen of course), and the day is won.
The Nutcracker invites Clara to visit the Land of the Dolls. She does and is impressed by the beauty around her, and the Nutcracker asks her to stay and become his Queen. She turns him down, for good reasons, and everyone in the Land of the Dolls starts to turn back into lifeless objects. Then, to make everything weirder, the “dead” Mouse King shows up for one more hurrah and fights with Clara. He ends up falling over the balcony and dying. Clara returns home via “It was just a dream,” freaks out, runs to her Uncle Drosselmeyer’s house, and meets his nephew, who looks exactly like the Nutcracker, but not really.
Overall:
When all is said and done, I would have to say that I like the beginning of the movie a lot more than the end. The rules for how the magic works make sense, and the characters are pretty well defined. Clara is competitive with her siblings and thinks they are weird, and she is basically about as active as the material allows her to be. The Nutcracker himself is pretty bland and soft-spoken in comparison, but he does try his best with the situation he’s in, so I can’t dislike him. The Mouse King is somewhat threatening, if one dimensional. There isn’t much to say about the side characters. Clara’s siblings are fine, as are most of the side characters. With the exception of Marie, none of them are particularly annoying.
The music is fine, if occasionally distracting. It is Tschaikowsky, after all.
The animation is pretty good for a direct to VHS movie. The run-cycles are pretty goofy, but it flows and has detail.
I like the obvious nods to the aspects of the book that the writers changed, such as naming the new doll Marie. As someone who read the book recently, it was nice to know that they cared about the material they were adapting.
In the end, I feel that considering the movie is twenty-eight years old, it holds up pretty good. I would definitely watch it again and probably share it with the students in my class, or with my nephew.
The Nutcracker Prince is an enjoyable little children's movie that is a strange mashup of the novel by E.T.A. Hoffman and the popular ballet. The story is fairly simple and follows Clara as she interacts with her family at the yearly Christmas party, where she and her siblings receive the titular Nutcracker from their Uncle Drosselmeyer, as well as a golden castle. He then proceeds to tell Clara about the Nutcracker’s backstory. Then Fritz, Clara’s little brother, breaks the Nutcracker and she scolds him.
Later that night, the Mouse King attacks, attempting to kill the Nutcracker, and Clara watches the toys do battle with the Mouse King’s army. Clara ends up tripping and hurting herself, which makes her bedridden. During this time, Fritz brings her a partially eaten box of chocolates, which she puts in her nightstand drawer. Later that night, the Mouse King approaches her and threatens her. Clara offers him the box of chocolates and when he hops in the drawer to eat them, she shuts him in. She runs downstairs to protect the Nutcracker, which transitions to the second attack of the Mouse King and his army. The toys and mice battle, and eventually the Nutcracker runs the Mouse King through (off-screen of course), and the day is won.
The Nutcracker invites Clara to visit the Land of the Dolls. She does and is impressed by the beauty around her, and the Nutcracker asks her to stay and become his Queen. She turns him down, for good reasons, and everyone in the Land of the Dolls starts to turn back into lifeless objects. Then, to make everything weirder, the “dead” Mouse King shows up for one more hurrah and fights with Clara. He ends up falling over the balcony and dying. Clara returns home via “It was just a dream,” freaks out, runs to her Uncle Drosselmeyer’s house, and meets his nephew, who looks exactly like the Nutcracker, but not really.
Overall:
When all is said and done, I would have to say that I like the beginning of the movie a lot more than the end. The rules for how the magic works make sense, and the characters are pretty well defined. Clara is competitive with her siblings and thinks they are weird, and she is basically about as active as the material allows her to be. The Nutcracker himself is pretty bland and soft-spoken in comparison, but he does try his best with the situation he’s in, so I can’t dislike him. The Mouse King is somewhat threatening, if one dimensional. There isn’t much to say about the side characters. Clara’s siblings are fine, as are most of the side characters. With the exception of Marie, none of them are particularly annoying.
The music is fine, if occasionally distracting. It is Tschaikowsky, after all.
The animation is pretty good for a direct to VHS movie. The run-cycles are pretty goofy, but it flows and has detail.
I like the obvious nods to the aspects of the book that the writers changed, such as naming the new doll Marie. As someone who read the book recently, it was nice to know that they cared about the material they were adapting.
In the end, I feel that considering the movie is twenty-eight years old, it holds up pretty good. I would definitely watch it again and probably share it with the students in my class, or with my nephew.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Saints for All Occasions in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Beautiful story of parenthood, immigration, siblings, religion, and so much more
Nora and Theresa Flynn are only twenty-one and seventeen when they leave their native Ireland and immigrate to the U.S. For her entire life, Nora has been the quintessential older sister, raising Theresa and their younger brother after the death of their mother. Now she's headed to Boston to be married to their former Irish neighbor, Charlie, whom Nora doesn't really even love. Theresa, meanwhile, is outgoing, beautiful, and intelligent. She loves the dances and social atmosphere in Boston, but that all changes when she winds up pregnant. Both Nora and Theresa are forced to make some drastic life decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Fifty years later, in 2009, Nora and Charlie have four children: John, Bridget, Brian, and Patrick. But Theresa and Nora are no longer speaking, and Theresa lives as a cloistered nun in an abbey in Vermont. What happened between the two sisters? And how will a sudden tragedy affect their current, separate lives?
This was an amazing book - just beautiful, heartbreaking, and lovely. Sullivan captured the essence of each of her characters so perfectly. I could picture every one, and each was so realistic, with their own background, mannerisms, and details.
The novel switches between the past, starting with Nora and Theresa's journey to Boston, and 2009, with a shocking event that rocks the entire family. We hear from each character--Nora, Theresa, John, Bridget, Brian, and Patrick. As I said, they are each an individual and embellished with Sullivan's wonderful writing and details. For instance, I loved the tidbit that Nora and her daughter-in-law communicated for years mainly through Nora's daughter's dog at family gatherings. It said so much with just one story. (And I've so been there.)
I became attached to each character in their own way thanks to the strong writing and characterization. I don't always enjoy books with shifts between time periods, but all flowed seamlessly here. There's an underlying thread that ties everything together, just adding to the brilliance of the novel. While it's really a story of a family, there's still a bit of suspense, as you try to fit some pieces together. Everything works so well.
Overall, I just loved this beautiful story of parenthood, immigration, siblings, religion, and so much more. It's achingly well-written, and while it ended just right, I was still sad to see the characters go. I'll certainly be recommending it to everyone I know
This was an amazing book - just beautiful, heartbreaking, and lovely. Sullivan captured the essence of each of her characters so perfectly. I could picture every one, and each was so realistic, with their own background, mannerisms, and details.
The novel switches between the past, starting with Nora and Theresa's journey to Boston, and 2009, with a shocking event that rocks the entire family. We hear from each character--Nora, Theresa, John, Bridget, Brian, and Patrick. As I said, they are each an individual and embellished with Sullivan's wonderful writing and details. For instance, I loved the tidbit that Nora and her daughter-in-law communicated for years mainly through Nora's daughter's dog at family gatherings. It said so much with just one story. (And I've so been there.)
I became attached to each character in their own way thanks to the strong writing and characterization. I don't always enjoy books with shifts between time periods, but all flowed seamlessly here. There's an underlying thread that ties everything together, just adding to the brilliance of the novel. While it's really a story of a family, there's still a bit of suspense, as you try to fit some pieces together. Everything works so well.
Overall, I just loved this beautiful story of parenthood, immigration, siblings, religion, and so much more. It's achingly well-written, and while it ended just right, I was still sad to see the characters go. I'll certainly be recommending it to everyone I know
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Summer of '69 in Books
Aug 23, 2019
Every year Kate Levin and her family spend the summer on Nantucket with Kate's mother, Exalta. But this summer is different. Kate's eldest, Blair, 24, is now married to a MIT professor named Angus Whalen and they're expecting their first baby in August. As such, Blair won't be on Nantucket this summer. Middle sister, Kirby, is a junior in college and spending the summer on Martha's Vineyard. Her only son, Tiger, recently deployed to Vietnam, which has left Kate feeling completely panicked and lost. Only her youngest, thirteen-year-old, Jessie, makes the trip. But without her siblings, Jessie feels overlooked and ignored. It's the historic summer of '69--and Levin family will have some memorable experiences of their own, too.
I just love Elin Hilderbrand's books and this was a really fun one. It didn't feel that much like "historical fiction," despite the 1969 setting, but it was fascinating to get a glimpse of how the late 1960s affected the family and their decisions--especially the females. The time period affects each woman, even Jessie, in their own way. Mom Kate was a tough one to love, at times, ignoring her poor daughter and moaning about Tiger and her own past. But, man, Hilderbrand just comes up with the best family dynamics. She sets an amazing scene, aided by her beloved Nantucket, and before you know it, you are there with her characters, immersed in their drama and daily lives.
For me, the star of this one was young Jessie. I loved how much of the book revolved around her--the points of view vary, but we hear from her a lot, and I couldn't help but love the kid. Nothing like growing up with a slightly absent mom, domineering grandmother, and a bunch of way older siblings, one of whom is at war. She was a breath of fresh air, and of course, Hilderbrand wrote from a teenage point of view perfectly. She gives all Kate's daughters their own unique voice, and it's amazing how each character stands out easily as distinct from one another.
This is not "simply" a tale of a family over a summer, it's captivating and engaging look at a family shaped by historical and domestic circumstances. I certainly enjoyed this novel and would definitely recommend it. I usually shy away from historical fiction, but I found it quite interesting--great characters and family dynamics as always from our summer novel queen. 4 stars.
I just love Elin Hilderbrand's books and this was a really fun one. It didn't feel that much like "historical fiction," despite the 1969 setting, but it was fascinating to get a glimpse of how the late 1960s affected the family and their decisions--especially the females. The time period affects each woman, even Jessie, in their own way. Mom Kate was a tough one to love, at times, ignoring her poor daughter and moaning about Tiger and her own past. But, man, Hilderbrand just comes up with the best family dynamics. She sets an amazing scene, aided by her beloved Nantucket, and before you know it, you are there with her characters, immersed in their drama and daily lives.
For me, the star of this one was young Jessie. I loved how much of the book revolved around her--the points of view vary, but we hear from her a lot, and I couldn't help but love the kid. Nothing like growing up with a slightly absent mom, domineering grandmother, and a bunch of way older siblings, one of whom is at war. She was a breath of fresh air, and of course, Hilderbrand wrote from a teenage point of view perfectly. She gives all Kate's daughters their own unique voice, and it's amazing how each character stands out easily as distinct from one another.
This is not "simply" a tale of a family over a summer, it's captivating and engaging look at a family shaped by historical and domestic circumstances. I certainly enjoyed this novel and would definitely recommend it. I usually shy away from historical fiction, but I found it quite interesting--great characters and family dynamics as always from our summer novel queen. 4 stars.