Search
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Nightmare City in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I read the blurb to Nightmare City by Andrew Klavan, I knew it was a book I had to read! While it wasn't a fantastic read, it was still decent enough.
I think the title of this book suits it quite well. What the main character is in is a city made from his nightmares!
At first I wasn't sure if I liked the cover, but it's kind of grown on me. Now I do like it. I like how we see the monsters coming out of the fog. Definitely creepy!
I thought the world building was done really well. It has a super creepy and sinister feel about it. In fact, the world felt so real at times, it was like I was Tom.
The pacing does let the book down somewhat, I felt. For the first three quarters of the book, I felt that the pacing was a bit slow. In fact, there were times when I would just skim paragraphs as I became bored. However, the pacing did pick up in the last quarter of the book, of which I was thankful. From there until the end, I couldn't put the book down!
I thought the whole idea for the plot was interesting. It's not an original idea, but Klavan put his own spin on it making it a bit different. I'd go into more detail, but I don't want to give any spoilers away. Oh, and as for the mystery part of the book, I would've never guessed who the culprit was! There's no cliff hangers, so I believe this book may just be a stand alone.
I thought all the characters were written superbly! Though most of the book, the only character featured is Tom. Tom seemed to me like a typical 17 year old male. He likes cars and girls, but he also quests for the truth which puts his life in jeopardy. I liked how down to Earth Tom was and how he couldn't be intimidated when it came to letting the truth be known. Even though she isn't featured very much, I did like the character of Lisa. I liked how friendly she was, and I felt like she was just a very warm person. There's also the character of Marie, Tom's crush, which I liked to begin with, but I'm not going to say anything due to spoilers.
The dialogue flowed very well, as did the character interactions. Nothing felt disjointed or awkward at all. There's no swearing in this book and only mild violence.
Overall, Nightmare City is a decent read. The pacing does let it down a bit, but I think most people would like the book.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who are fans of horror or those who want to be a bit creeped out.
I'd give Nightmare City by Andrew Klavan a 3.5 out of 5.
(I received a hardback copy of this book for free from booksneeze.com in exchange for a a fair and honest review).
When I read the blurb to Nightmare City by Andrew Klavan, I knew it was a book I had to read! While it wasn't a fantastic read, it was still decent enough.
I think the title of this book suits it quite well. What the main character is in is a city made from his nightmares!
At first I wasn't sure if I liked the cover, but it's kind of grown on me. Now I do like it. I like how we see the monsters coming out of the fog. Definitely creepy!
I thought the world building was done really well. It has a super creepy and sinister feel about it. In fact, the world felt so real at times, it was like I was Tom.
The pacing does let the book down somewhat, I felt. For the first three quarters of the book, I felt that the pacing was a bit slow. In fact, there were times when I would just skim paragraphs as I became bored. However, the pacing did pick up in the last quarter of the book, of which I was thankful. From there until the end, I couldn't put the book down!
I thought the whole idea for the plot was interesting. It's not an original idea, but Klavan put his own spin on it making it a bit different. I'd go into more detail, but I don't want to give any spoilers away. Oh, and as for the mystery part of the book, I would've never guessed who the culprit was! There's no cliff hangers, so I believe this book may just be a stand alone.
I thought all the characters were written superbly! Though most of the book, the only character featured is Tom. Tom seemed to me like a typical 17 year old male. He likes cars and girls, but he also quests for the truth which puts his life in jeopardy. I liked how down to Earth Tom was and how he couldn't be intimidated when it came to letting the truth be known. Even though she isn't featured very much, I did like the character of Lisa. I liked how friendly she was, and I felt like she was just a very warm person. There's also the character of Marie, Tom's crush, which I liked to begin with, but I'm not going to say anything due to spoilers.
The dialogue flowed very well, as did the character interactions. Nothing felt disjointed or awkward at all. There's no swearing in this book and only mild violence.
Overall, Nightmare City is a decent read. The pacing does let it down a bit, but I think most people would like the book.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who are fans of horror or those who want to be a bit creeped out.
I'd give Nightmare City by Andrew Klavan a 3.5 out of 5.
(I received a hardback copy of this book for free from booksneeze.com in exchange for a a fair and honest review).
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Carrie in Books
Nov 14, 2018
Full review can be found on my blog - www.diaryofdifference.com
I am probably one of the last people on Earth that hasn’t read a Stephen King book. Carrie is the first book I decided to read. People have been suggesting it to me for a while, and it seemed like a nice short bit of introduction to Stephen’s horror world.
Also, a special thank you to my friend Dave, for constantly recommending Stephen King books to me, until I finally decided to listen to him. He seemed to be right!
Now - Carrie.
A book about a girl that lives with her crazy religious mother in a creepy house. A girl who is being bullied at school all the time. A story about a girl that has the ability to move objects as she wishes. And a prom night, where everything escalates.
Carrie is a sixteen year old girl. And she has been raised by her mother, who is a religious person in a - not healthy way. When Carrie misbehaves, she is sent to a closet to pray for the whole day. Even though Carrie doesn’t share her mother’s beliefs, she can’t really stand up and fight for herself.
The plot gets a grip when Carrie has her first period at the age of sixteen. She thinks she will bleed to death. And all her classmates are laughing at her, because she is stupid. And throw tampons her way. And as I am reading this, I keep thinking - what kind of mother won’t tell her child about menstruation, and puberty, and all the normal teenage phases a kid has to go through while growing up?
This moment, in the school bathroom, is the moment Carrie finds out about her powers.
And a few weeks later, a terrible thing happens.
This is a horror story, but the horror doesn’t lie in what Carrie did, but what led her to do that. Who it is to blame, and why things escalated the way they did.
Stephen King described bullying in its most painful and real way, and the consequences it can lead to. And it does happen, in every school, to a lot of children all over the world each day. A sometimes, most of the times, they are bullied only because they are different, not because they are bad.
This is a story that silently stands up to bullying, and by doing that raises such a strong voice in every corner of the world.
And remember - if you are the bully - think twice before you say things. Words can hurt, and they can result in bad things happening. Think twice about why you say what you say. The classmate of yours might have a talent you don’t know of.
And if you are the bullied child - also remember - you are kind and beautiful, no matter what everyone says. You shouldn’t let people bring you down. And we have all been bullied while growing up. Once you reach a certain age, people stop caring, and you stop caring what people think, and then, finally, you can be comfortable and happy with who you are!
I am probably one of the last people on Earth that hasn’t read a Stephen King book. Carrie is the first book I decided to read. People have been suggesting it to me for a while, and it seemed like a nice short bit of introduction to Stephen’s horror world.
Also, a special thank you to my friend Dave, for constantly recommending Stephen King books to me, until I finally decided to listen to him. He seemed to be right!
Now - Carrie.
A book about a girl that lives with her crazy religious mother in a creepy house. A girl who is being bullied at school all the time. A story about a girl that has the ability to move objects as she wishes. And a prom night, where everything escalates.
Carrie is a sixteen year old girl. And she has been raised by her mother, who is a religious person in a - not healthy way. When Carrie misbehaves, she is sent to a closet to pray for the whole day. Even though Carrie doesn’t share her mother’s beliefs, she can’t really stand up and fight for herself.
The plot gets a grip when Carrie has her first period at the age of sixteen. She thinks she will bleed to death. And all her classmates are laughing at her, because she is stupid. And throw tampons her way. And as I am reading this, I keep thinking - what kind of mother won’t tell her child about menstruation, and puberty, and all the normal teenage phases a kid has to go through while growing up?
This moment, in the school bathroom, is the moment Carrie finds out about her powers.
And a few weeks later, a terrible thing happens.
This is a horror story, but the horror doesn’t lie in what Carrie did, but what led her to do that. Who it is to blame, and why things escalated the way they did.
Stephen King described bullying in its most painful and real way, and the consequences it can lead to. And it does happen, in every school, to a lot of children all over the world each day. A sometimes, most of the times, they are bullied only because they are different, not because they are bad.
This is a story that silently stands up to bullying, and by doing that raises such a strong voice in every corner of the world.
And remember - if you are the bully - think twice before you say things. Words can hurt, and they can result in bad things happening. Think twice about why you say what you say. The classmate of yours might have a talent you don’t know of.
And if you are the bullied child - also remember - you are kind and beautiful, no matter what everyone says. You shouldn’t let people bring you down. And we have all been bullied while growing up. Once you reach a certain age, people stop caring, and you stop caring what people think, and then, finally, you can be comfortable and happy with who you are!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spycies (2020) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
A lot of the obscure kid's films I see at the cinema just appear with no warning, that means an exciting trip of uncertainty!
Vladimir the cat is a top spy at the Agency but after causing so much damage to property in a recent mission he's sent out to a remote station as penance. There he meets Hector, a tech genius rat who's isolation has left him craving company and eager to bond.
There isn't much excitement in their lives, just Hector's soaps on TV and trying to decide which pizza to heat up. Until one day the dullness is interrupted by a team who infiltrate the compound and steal something from the vault. After they make their escape Vlad and Hector head home to hunt down the perpetrators and get back what was stolen.
What I want to say about Spycies first is that the animation is amazing. I was blown away by some of the shots. The poster states it's from the animators of Despicable Me, Minions and The Secret Life Of Pets, I really thought this was an attempt to cash in on connections, and it is to an extent as this is relatively unknown but it does stand on its own once you see it.
The station that Hector and Vladimir are on is an oil rig out in open water and a lot of the shots are done during a storm, these scenes are incredible. One in particular felt like real footage and not animation, it was absolutely beautiful.
There's no denying that this is Zootropolis/Zootopia with spies, that thought bothered me more after watching it than it did during. It feels like they made a very specific selection of animals to be different. The other big difference is that it's clear it's set at some point in the future, and this is probably my only major issue.
Futuristic isn't something you really get from the world of Spycies, apart from when you look at the vehicles. The opening sequence, while epic on action movie scales, was very chaotic and the vehicles being new and unusual just added to that. With so much tradition around the film this felt out of place.
As an adult watching this film it was noticeable that it was made for a foreign market, it has clear regional influences that might not land for everyone but I suspect that the kids won't be too bothered about them.
I quite like the story but it isn't necessarily anything new. James Bond (yes, there's a Bond, James Bond moment in there) meets Zootropolis with flashes of Spies In Disguise. Familiar might feel stale but I enjoyed it. The script doesn't quite fit with the audience it's aimed at, it's probably not quite fun enough for kids but there's plenty of action and slapstick to keep them entertained as well as adults.
[On the title itself... I'm assuming it's a play on the word "species"?]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/spycies-movie-review.html
Vladimir the cat is a top spy at the Agency but after causing so much damage to property in a recent mission he's sent out to a remote station as penance. There he meets Hector, a tech genius rat who's isolation has left him craving company and eager to bond.
There isn't much excitement in their lives, just Hector's soaps on TV and trying to decide which pizza to heat up. Until one day the dullness is interrupted by a team who infiltrate the compound and steal something from the vault. After they make their escape Vlad and Hector head home to hunt down the perpetrators and get back what was stolen.
What I want to say about Spycies first is that the animation is amazing. I was blown away by some of the shots. The poster states it's from the animators of Despicable Me, Minions and The Secret Life Of Pets, I really thought this was an attempt to cash in on connections, and it is to an extent as this is relatively unknown but it does stand on its own once you see it.
The station that Hector and Vladimir are on is an oil rig out in open water and a lot of the shots are done during a storm, these scenes are incredible. One in particular felt like real footage and not animation, it was absolutely beautiful.
There's no denying that this is Zootropolis/Zootopia with spies, that thought bothered me more after watching it than it did during. It feels like they made a very specific selection of animals to be different. The other big difference is that it's clear it's set at some point in the future, and this is probably my only major issue.
Futuristic isn't something you really get from the world of Spycies, apart from when you look at the vehicles. The opening sequence, while epic on action movie scales, was very chaotic and the vehicles being new and unusual just added to that. With so much tradition around the film this felt out of place.
As an adult watching this film it was noticeable that it was made for a foreign market, it has clear regional influences that might not land for everyone but I suspect that the kids won't be too bothered about them.
I quite like the story but it isn't necessarily anything new. James Bond (yes, there's a Bond, James Bond moment in there) meets Zootropolis with flashes of Spies In Disguise. Familiar might feel stale but I enjoyed it. The script doesn't quite fit with the audience it's aimed at, it's probably not quite fun enough for kids but there's plenty of action and slapstick to keep them entertained as well as adults.
[On the title itself... I'm assuming it's a play on the word "species"?]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/spycies-movie-review.html
A(
Afterlife (Afterlife Saga, #1)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Afterlife… just some gothic nightclub where gossip is fuelled by the presence of a rich and...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated In the Heights (2021) in Movies
Jul 18, 2021
I love me some musical action, so I'm not sure how I never knew this existed. Not to worry though, I was quickly reeducated.
Usnavi is saving up everything he can as he plans a future back in the Dominican Republic. Living at the centre of his neighbourhood, we join his story and the dramas of the community.
In The Heights dives into the stories in the hot spot of the community as a heatwave bears down on them. Families, friendships and business dealings, all come out of the woodwork as they try to cope with the heat... and it does all of that with some and dance thrown on top.
I know that Lin-Manuel Miranda is all the rage these days, but I don't enjoy the talky-singing that's a bit of a trademark. Here though, the jazzy beats and hip-swaying tunes really helped. Had I not been restricted by the fact I was in public and it's generally frowned upon to do it in the cinema, I would have been dancing. With that restriction though, it was dropped to toe-tapping and shimmying in my seat.
There's a lot of talent in the cast, though not all the singing was music to my ears. With so many cast members I'm not going to go into the individual performances because, while a handful of characters are bigger in the story, it's very much an ensemble piece. Together they have great chemistry, and those relationships shine because of it.
Choreography during the numbers is fantastic, and the use of space in and out of those moments worked well with the confined spaces. There's one scene in particular that was very inventive and (even though it gave me a vertigo wobble) it helped to make the song stand out from the others... though there's probably something in every song that I could pick out for the same reason.
Design of... everything... is great in In The Heights. There's not really a point where your eyes aren't darting about looking at the sets or following the performers. If there aren't awards in this film's future then I'd be surprised, it would have to be something epic that beat this.
I didn't have that previous connection with the theatre production, and I think that would definitely have helped matters. In the theatre setting the long runtime never feels like it's actually that long, you have the intermission and scenes are broken up by the nature of it being a live performance. 2 hours and 23 minutes isn't really that long in that context, and these days it's not even particularly long for a film. But as a film, I did feel its length. I'm also one of those people that goes to theatre productions and likes to see what peripheral characters are doing, and that's not something you can easily do in a film. I may listen to the soundtrack at some point, but I don't think I'm in any rush to rewatch In The Height even considering all the things I enjoyed about it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/in-heights-movie-review.html
Usnavi is saving up everything he can as he plans a future back in the Dominican Republic. Living at the centre of his neighbourhood, we join his story and the dramas of the community.
In The Heights dives into the stories in the hot spot of the community as a heatwave bears down on them. Families, friendships and business dealings, all come out of the woodwork as they try to cope with the heat... and it does all of that with some and dance thrown on top.
I know that Lin-Manuel Miranda is all the rage these days, but I don't enjoy the talky-singing that's a bit of a trademark. Here though, the jazzy beats and hip-swaying tunes really helped. Had I not been restricted by the fact I was in public and it's generally frowned upon to do it in the cinema, I would have been dancing. With that restriction though, it was dropped to toe-tapping and shimmying in my seat.
There's a lot of talent in the cast, though not all the singing was music to my ears. With so many cast members I'm not going to go into the individual performances because, while a handful of characters are bigger in the story, it's very much an ensemble piece. Together they have great chemistry, and those relationships shine because of it.
Choreography during the numbers is fantastic, and the use of space in and out of those moments worked well with the confined spaces. There's one scene in particular that was very inventive and (even though it gave me a vertigo wobble) it helped to make the song stand out from the others... though there's probably something in every song that I could pick out for the same reason.
Design of... everything... is great in In The Heights. There's not really a point where your eyes aren't darting about looking at the sets or following the performers. If there aren't awards in this film's future then I'd be surprised, it would have to be something epic that beat this.
I didn't have that previous connection with the theatre production, and I think that would definitely have helped matters. In the theatre setting the long runtime never feels like it's actually that long, you have the intermission and scenes are broken up by the nature of it being a live performance. 2 hours and 23 minutes isn't really that long in that context, and these days it's not even particularly long for a film. But as a film, I did feel its length. I'm also one of those people that goes to theatre productions and likes to see what peripheral characters are doing, and that's not something you can easily do in a film. I may listen to the soundtrack at some point, but I don't think I'm in any rush to rewatch In The Height even considering all the things I enjoyed about it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/in-heights-movie-review.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Airplane! (1980) in Movies
Dec 8, 2020
Surely you can't be serious?
Film #6 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Airplane!
Airplane! is a well known comedy classic, but for me I’m ashamed to admit that aside from the infamous “Don’t call me Shirley” line, I could barely remember a thing about this film. Airplane! is undoubtedly the mother, and master, of all comedy spoof films. Written and directed by Jim Abrahams and David and Jerry Zucker, this focuses Ted Striker (Robert Hays) who despite his fear of flying boards a plane to win back his girlfriend Elaine (Julie Hagerty), only to wind up having to ensure the plane lands safely when the pilots get sick.
The plot is definitely basic, but what it lacks in proper story it more than makes up for in laughs. I’ve never seen a film so chock full of jokes and gags, and in such a wide variety too. This features everything from subtle(ish) background jokes to witty and smart dialogue and obvious physical humour, and aside for a few misses, the majority of these jokes land perfectly. There’s the crude and hilarious auto pilot scene, to the incredibly funny and smart lines like when stewardess Elaine asks Doctor Rumack (Leslie Nielsen) about the onboard illness, “A hospital? What is it?”, to which he replies “It’s a big building with patients”. There’s something incredibly simple about the humour in this film that works so well, and yet aside from those few misses, it never resorts to crudeness that becomes disgusting and overbearing like most modern comedies do. These gags paired with the spoofing and sending up of disaster movies (plus many other genres) is a winning formula that has been emulated many times over by the likes of The Naked Gun and Hot Shots films since this was released in 1980. Admittedly there are some jokes that nowadays would be considered unacceptable and would never see the light of day, but fortunately these are a small minority and don’t spoil the overall enjoyment of the film, even now 40 years later.
The cast excel too in pulling off the over the top cheesiness you’d expect from a parody, and this is no mean feat. Whilst Julie Hagerty and Robert Hays do well as the main characters, it’s the smaller supporting roles that really stand out especially as they appear to have been given the best lines. You have Leslie Nielsen as the deadpan Doctor Rumack who delivers some hilarious dialogue with such a straight face, Lloyd Bridges as Steve McCroskey with his immortal lines beginning with “Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop…” and my absolute favourite background character Johnny (Stephen Stucker) who has some of the funniest moments you’ll ever see from such a minor character. And a notable mention has to go to Otto the automatic pilot, who even gets a feature in the credits.
Airplane! is a rightful comedy classic that could beat modern comedy films hands down, and it truly is a shame they don’t make spoofs like this anymore. It’s hilariously funny, right until the very end of the credits and an entirely unforgettable comedy experience.
Airplane! is a well known comedy classic, but for me I’m ashamed to admit that aside from the infamous “Don’t call me Shirley” line, I could barely remember a thing about this film. Airplane! is undoubtedly the mother, and master, of all comedy spoof films. Written and directed by Jim Abrahams and David and Jerry Zucker, this focuses Ted Striker (Robert Hays) who despite his fear of flying boards a plane to win back his girlfriend Elaine (Julie Hagerty), only to wind up having to ensure the plane lands safely when the pilots get sick.
The plot is definitely basic, but what it lacks in proper story it more than makes up for in laughs. I’ve never seen a film so chock full of jokes and gags, and in such a wide variety too. This features everything from subtle(ish) background jokes to witty and smart dialogue and obvious physical humour, and aside for a few misses, the majority of these jokes land perfectly. There’s the crude and hilarious auto pilot scene, to the incredibly funny and smart lines like when stewardess Elaine asks Doctor Rumack (Leslie Nielsen) about the onboard illness, “A hospital? What is it?”, to which he replies “It’s a big building with patients”. There’s something incredibly simple about the humour in this film that works so well, and yet aside from those few misses, it never resorts to crudeness that becomes disgusting and overbearing like most modern comedies do. These gags paired with the spoofing and sending up of disaster movies (plus many other genres) is a winning formula that has been emulated many times over by the likes of The Naked Gun and Hot Shots films since this was released in 1980. Admittedly there are some jokes that nowadays would be considered unacceptable and would never see the light of day, but fortunately these are a small minority and don’t spoil the overall enjoyment of the film, even now 40 years later.
The cast excel too in pulling off the over the top cheesiness you’d expect from a parody, and this is no mean feat. Whilst Julie Hagerty and Robert Hays do well as the main characters, it’s the smaller supporting roles that really stand out especially as they appear to have been given the best lines. You have Leslie Nielsen as the deadpan Doctor Rumack who delivers some hilarious dialogue with such a straight face, Lloyd Bridges as Steve McCroskey with his immortal lines beginning with “Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop…” and my absolute favourite background character Johnny (Stephen Stucker) who has some of the funniest moments you’ll ever see from such a minor character. And a notable mention has to go to Otto the automatic pilot, who even gets a feature in the credits.
Airplane! is a rightful comedy classic that could beat modern comedy films hands down, and it truly is a shame they don’t make spoofs like this anymore. It’s hilariously funny, right until the very end of the credits and an entirely unforgettable comedy experience.
Ronyell (38 KP) rated Monkeybone (2001) in Movies
Aug 4, 2020
Get Boned With Monkeybone!
I had watched almost all the movies directed by Henry Selick at this point and I had enjoyed almost all of them! However, "Monkeybone" was that one case that I could have enjoyed it much better if the plot and the characters were handled a bit better, but I'll get into that later. What I did like about this movie was the fact that the world of Downtown was so creative to look at as all the characters look like they came out of various mythologies and fantasy works and seeing them interact with each other was brilliant to see! I also loved how all the actors and actresses in this film gave their all by acting so hammy yet convincing towards the audience in detailing the characters' plight throughout this movie. Probably the actors and actresses in this film that I really enjoyed their performances were Whoopi Goldberg and Brendan Fraser as they really made their characters truly stand out in this film! I loved the way that Brendan Fraser was able to balance between being hammy and being emotional as Stu Miley and it really made me get into Stu's predicament of trying to confess his love towards Julie and try to find his way out of Downtown so he could tell Julie he loves her. Whoopi Goldberg was also fantastic as Death as she made Death into a truly hilarious and sympathetic character and I really liked the relationship she develops with Stu. I also loved the fact that Stu truly does care about Julie and is willing to do anything to get back to her and confess his love to her.
Some problems that I had with this film was that I felt that the story could have been much better if the characters and the story were developed better. Now, I did look at the deleted scenes for this movie and I realized that the creative team were forced to cut out a lot of parts to help this film retain a PG-13 rating, but in doing that, they cut out a lot of parts that were essential to the plot of the story, even if they probably wouldn't make the movie any better than it is. I would have liked this movie better if we actually got to know more about the characters themselves, especially about the pact between Stu and his sister Kimmy where Kimmy will pull the plug on Stu if Stu goes into a coma, which the movie failed to go into more detail about. Also, there were times where the movie was forcing in crude humor where they didn't need to be and it made viewing this movie a bit awkward since one moment I would be enjoying the story of the film and then the next moment, they introduce a crude moment that involves toilet humor that kind of ruins the scenes for me.
Overall, while "Monkeybone" does have a lot of creative moments, especially during the Downtown sequences, the movie suffers from lack of character development that makes viewing this movie a bit hard at times.
Some problems that I had with this film was that I felt that the story could have been much better if the characters and the story were developed better. Now, I did look at the deleted scenes for this movie and I realized that the creative team were forced to cut out a lot of parts to help this film retain a PG-13 rating, but in doing that, they cut out a lot of parts that were essential to the plot of the story, even if they probably wouldn't make the movie any better than it is. I would have liked this movie better if we actually got to know more about the characters themselves, especially about the pact between Stu and his sister Kimmy where Kimmy will pull the plug on Stu if Stu goes into a coma, which the movie failed to go into more detail about. Also, there were times where the movie was forcing in crude humor where they didn't need to be and it made viewing this movie a bit awkward since one moment I would be enjoying the story of the film and then the next moment, they introduce a crude moment that involves toilet humor that kind of ruins the scenes for me.
Overall, while "Monkeybone" does have a lot of creative moments, especially during the Downtown sequences, the movie suffers from lack of character development that makes viewing this movie a bit hard at times.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Nov 14, 2018 (Updated Nov 14, 2018)
Outstanding performances from the entire cast (3 more)
Phenomenal Direction
Clever Cinematography
A Brilliant Script With Sharp Dialogue
The Best Movie I Have Seen This Year
Widows is an outstanding thriller from Steve McQueen. It stars a brilliant Viola Davis as Veronica Rawlings at the top of her game as a widow of her criminal husband. He and his crew died during the heist and now she and the other widows of the recently deceased crew decide to complete the heist and take the money for themselves. That is the basic plot outline, but it is actually a lot more in depth and layered than that, embroiled in politics and gang rivalries, amongst even more complex elements. However, although there are a lot of moving parts in the film, it never seems confused or messy. It doesn't treat it's audience like idiots either, as long as you are paying attention.
The cast are astonishing in the movie and I truly believe that is the sign of a great director getting the best out of his actors. Viola Davis is an acting powerhouse, making you want to cry one moment and then stand up and jump into battle with her the next. That woman could read the phonebook and make it sound convincingly intense. She is supported by a fantastic turn from Michelle Rodrigez, an actress who I have been a fan of for years, but can sometimes be known to come across fairly wooden. Not here, she is convincing and passionate in every scene she appears in. I also really liked seeing Elizabeth Debecki playing against type here. She is usually cast as a 'perfect,' type of character, such as Tom Hiddleston's love interest in Night Manager or as a member of the perfect alien race in Guardians of The Galaxy. Here she is a much more realistic, down to earth character. Cynthia Erivo, who came out of nowhere and blew me away in Bad Times At The El Royale, also appears here as the crew's driver and gives a genuine, energetic performance who is also the first one to stand up to Veronica's hard-ass attitude. Carrie Coon appears briefly as another widow, but her role is more of a cameo than anything else, it is still important to the story though towards the film's conclusion.
The male actors in the film are equally as brilliant as their female counterparts. I don't want to give too much away about Liam Neeson's Henry Rawlings, but he is convincing and engaging in every part of his performance. Jon Bernthal is slowly becoming the king of appearing in small impactful roles in big ensemble movies. He has already done this in Wolf Of Wall Street, Baby Driver, Sicario and Wind River and he does it here too appearing in a small but memorable role as one of Henry's crew. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are great as usual here, as a believable father and son duo. Daniel Kaluuya deserves a special shout out as the movie's main antagonist. This role really gives Kaluuya a chance to flex his more cruel acting skills and show off his versatility as a performer.
The script written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn is full of razor sharp wit and electrifying moments. This is the type of golden material that most actors dream of getting to work with. The movie is shot by Sean Bobbitt who uses an array of clever camera angles and techniques to help convey the mood of each scene. Bobbit also shot Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave and there is a reason that McQueen continues to use him to shoot his films. The score and audio mixing was also effective and helped to amplify the atmosphere throughout the movie.
Overall, Widows is a perfect storm of extremely high quality technical aspects and exquisite performances from an exceptionally talented ensemble of actors. If you didn't get what you wanted out of a female led heist thriller from Ocean's 8, then go out and see this masterpiece asap.
The cast are astonishing in the movie and I truly believe that is the sign of a great director getting the best out of his actors. Viola Davis is an acting powerhouse, making you want to cry one moment and then stand up and jump into battle with her the next. That woman could read the phonebook and make it sound convincingly intense. She is supported by a fantastic turn from Michelle Rodrigez, an actress who I have been a fan of for years, but can sometimes be known to come across fairly wooden. Not here, she is convincing and passionate in every scene she appears in. I also really liked seeing Elizabeth Debecki playing against type here. She is usually cast as a 'perfect,' type of character, such as Tom Hiddleston's love interest in Night Manager or as a member of the perfect alien race in Guardians of The Galaxy. Here she is a much more realistic, down to earth character. Cynthia Erivo, who came out of nowhere and blew me away in Bad Times At The El Royale, also appears here as the crew's driver and gives a genuine, energetic performance who is also the first one to stand up to Veronica's hard-ass attitude. Carrie Coon appears briefly as another widow, but her role is more of a cameo than anything else, it is still important to the story though towards the film's conclusion.
The male actors in the film are equally as brilliant as their female counterparts. I don't want to give too much away about Liam Neeson's Henry Rawlings, but he is convincing and engaging in every part of his performance. Jon Bernthal is slowly becoming the king of appearing in small impactful roles in big ensemble movies. He has already done this in Wolf Of Wall Street, Baby Driver, Sicario and Wind River and he does it here too appearing in a small but memorable role as one of Henry's crew. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are great as usual here, as a believable father and son duo. Daniel Kaluuya deserves a special shout out as the movie's main antagonist. This role really gives Kaluuya a chance to flex his more cruel acting skills and show off his versatility as a performer.
The script written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn is full of razor sharp wit and electrifying moments. This is the type of golden material that most actors dream of getting to work with. The movie is shot by Sean Bobbitt who uses an array of clever camera angles and techniques to help convey the mood of each scene. Bobbit also shot Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave and there is a reason that McQueen continues to use him to shoot his films. The score and audio mixing was also effective and helped to amplify the atmosphere throughout the movie.
Overall, Widows is a perfect storm of extremely high quality technical aspects and exquisite performances from an exceptionally talented ensemble of actors. If you didn't get what you wanted out of a female led heist thriller from Ocean's 8, then go out and see this masterpiece asap.
Although Fire is listed as the second book in the Graceling Realm series, it is really a prequel and generally unrelated to the first book. The events of Fire take place some 30+ years before the events of Graceling and in a different land. Although the two are somehow magically connected by a series of mountain tunnels, they don't know about one another. I didn't realize this when I started reading the book and was quite confused for a while.
The book starts with an extensive prol0gue which introduces us to a character that only re-emerges in the story for a short time near the conclusion. While I understand his inclusion, as it is the only thing that ties Graceling and Fire together I don't see its purpose in the story. It was not particularly interesting to read and didn't give me a better sense of who the character was. Personally, I would have rather the prologue not have been included in the story as it certainly made my interest in the book wane.
The prologue set a slow and unengaging pace for the start of the book that did not remedy itself for some time. Although the start of the book was enjoyable enough, it didn't really really intriguing until the second half. That is when I really fell in love with the characters and the plot. In Fire, we are introduced to Monsters rather than Gracelings. Human Monsters have special abilities, although there aren't many of them in the Dells. Instead, most of the Monsters are animals with abilities beyond their average non-Monster kin. I don't feel like the Monster idea is well explained in the books and I wish the author had developed that aspect of the world building more.
When we first meet Fire, she is not a very likeable character (at least in my opinion). Her Monster abilities make her so beautiful that people can't control themselves around her and usually either want to possess her or kill her so no one else can have her. Harsh. She also has the ability to get inside people's heads and manipulate their thoughts. Scary. Those combined made it difficult to relate to her character, although over the course of the novel her personality was developed more and she became a little more human.
There were many other characters in the book, but Prince Brigand or Hannah were definitely my favourites. They made the story more enjoyable and I loved the scenes that they were in. Hannah was fiesty and not afraid to stand up for what she believed in, even though she wasn't quite six yet. Prince Brigand loved his brother's Kingdom and did what he must to protect it, even if it would put his life at risk.
The world building was good overall, the characters developed slightly over the course of the story and the pacing was generally decent although there were a few inclusions to the story that significantly slowed the pacing down. My biggest concern/problem with the book was the character I mentioned from the prologue's inclusion into the story later on. He didn't fit in with the story initially and his re-introduction just completely threw off the plot. Our characters went off on this side storyline that didn't add anything to the plot and reinforces for me that his inclusion wasn't necessary. I understand that he was the only aspect that binds the two books together, but his inclusion detracts from the otherwise enjoyable story.
In the end, his inclusion and the small details thrown in throughout the story took away from the world of the Dells that was very enjoyable. The book would have certainly been rated more favourably by me if those aspects were removed. Overall though, I really enjoyed reading the book and can't wait to finish the series (although it is also another jump in time and space, so be prepared for some confusion initially.)
The book starts with an extensive prol0gue which introduces us to a character that only re-emerges in the story for a short time near the conclusion. While I understand his inclusion, as it is the only thing that ties Graceling and Fire together I don't see its purpose in the story. It was not particularly interesting to read and didn't give me a better sense of who the character was. Personally, I would have rather the prologue not have been included in the story as it certainly made my interest in the book wane.
The prologue set a slow and unengaging pace for the start of the book that did not remedy itself for some time. Although the start of the book was enjoyable enough, it didn't really really intriguing until the second half. That is when I really fell in love with the characters and the plot. In Fire, we are introduced to Monsters rather than Gracelings. Human Monsters have special abilities, although there aren't many of them in the Dells. Instead, most of the Monsters are animals with abilities beyond their average non-Monster kin. I don't feel like the Monster idea is well explained in the books and I wish the author had developed that aspect of the world building more.
When we first meet Fire, she is not a very likeable character (at least in my opinion). Her Monster abilities make her so beautiful that people can't control themselves around her and usually either want to possess her or kill her so no one else can have her. Harsh. She also has the ability to get inside people's heads and manipulate their thoughts. Scary. Those combined made it difficult to relate to her character, although over the course of the novel her personality was developed more and she became a little more human.
There were many other characters in the book, but Prince Brigand or Hannah were definitely my favourites. They made the story more enjoyable and I loved the scenes that they were in. Hannah was fiesty and not afraid to stand up for what she believed in, even though she wasn't quite six yet. Prince Brigand loved his brother's Kingdom and did what he must to protect it, even if it would put his life at risk.
The world building was good overall, the characters developed slightly over the course of the story and the pacing was generally decent although there were a few inclusions to the story that significantly slowed the pacing down. My biggest concern/problem with the book was the character I mentioned from the prologue's inclusion into the story later on. He didn't fit in with the story initially and his re-introduction just completely threw off the plot. Our characters went off on this side storyline that didn't add anything to the plot and reinforces for me that his inclusion wasn't necessary. I understand that he was the only aspect that binds the two books together, but his inclusion detracts from the otherwise enjoyable story.
In the end, his inclusion and the small details thrown in throughout the story took away from the world of the Dells that was very enjoyable. The book would have certainly been rated more favourably by me if those aspects were removed. Overall though, I really enjoyed reading the book and can't wait to finish the series (although it is also another jump in time and space, so be prepared for some confusion initially.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
The top billing cast on IMDb read like my top list of reasons not to see a film. Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Timothée Chalamet... all are raved about by various people but all have their own quirks that I can't stand to watch on screen. Chalamet did redeem himself with The King earlier this year for Netflix but none of the others have done anything recently to sway me.
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html