Search
Search results
War Dragons
Games and Entertainment
App
War Dragons is a visually stunning 3D real-time strategy game that puts you in control of the...
The Career Lattice: Combat Brain Drain, Improve Company Culture, and Attract Top Talent
Book
Reroute your career path for better, faster, longer-lasting success. "If you've been waiting for...
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Madam Tulip and the Knave of Hearts (Madam Tulip, #2) in Books
Sep 24, 2020
For more reviews please visit https://bbookinspector.wordpress.com
This book is a second part in Madam Tulip series, and normally, the first part is the one to wow readers to come back for more, but in this case, the second part was way better for me than the first one.
The first part was more of an introduction to Madam Tulip and what she is capable of, in this part things get more serious. Another difference was that, the first part was more like cosy mysteries; the second one loses its coziness and is more action filled, and more intense. Once again, Ahern chose his characters very skillfully. We have some which are incredibly eccentric and real personalities, and others, who are down to earth and very realistic. I honestly do not know how Ahern done his research for his books, but the details about royalty, elegance, old historical houses were a true pleasure to read about. Moreover, the details about historical house and laws of royal inheritance were really accurate and incredibly believable, so, well done to the author.
The narrative was once again told from Derry’s perspective, and in this book I was missing multiple perspectives, as I believe, it helps to understand other characters way better. I really enjoyed that Ahern played with this narrative more, incorporating different approaches in Derry’s life (working for her mom). In this novel there was less of Madam Tulip herself, and more of Derry and her bad luck to end up in dangerous situations. Another well done to the author for increasing the level of action in this novel, I really enjoyed unexpected turns and unusual places chosen for it. One thing what left me debating with myself was the “bad guy” in this book, he was very well picked, but at the same time very obvious and predictable. Even though this book is a second part in the series, it can easily be a standalone mystery, because Ahern explained everything a “new reader” needs to know.
The writing style of this book changed as well. It is more skillful and there are more difficult terms used in this novel, but it did not make it difficult to read, it just felt richer. The chapters are decent length, and once again, divided into smaller parts. I was little bit disappointed with the ending of this book, author used the same technique as in first book and it does not leave me satisfied. I WANT JUSTICE!!! :) So, to conclude, I was really amused with this book and I do recommend to give it a go. It left me very pleasantly surprised with more action, aristocratic and incredibly complex and entertaining characters, the interesting secrets, findings, and incredibly annoying and horrible Derry’s mom (can’t stand that woman now).
Was given this book by author for honest review.
This book is a second part in Madam Tulip series, and normally, the first part is the one to wow readers to come back for more, but in this case, the second part was way better for me than the first one.
The first part was more of an introduction to Madam Tulip and what she is capable of, in this part things get more serious. Another difference was that, the first part was more like cosy mysteries; the second one loses its coziness and is more action filled, and more intense. Once again, Ahern chose his characters very skillfully. We have some which are incredibly eccentric and real personalities, and others, who are down to earth and very realistic. I honestly do not know how Ahern done his research for his books, but the details about royalty, elegance, old historical houses were a true pleasure to read about. Moreover, the details about historical house and laws of royal inheritance were really accurate and incredibly believable, so, well done to the author.
The narrative was once again told from Derry’s perspective, and in this book I was missing multiple perspectives, as I believe, it helps to understand other characters way better. I really enjoyed that Ahern played with this narrative more, incorporating different approaches in Derry’s life (working for her mom). In this novel there was less of Madam Tulip herself, and more of Derry and her bad luck to end up in dangerous situations. Another well done to the author for increasing the level of action in this novel, I really enjoyed unexpected turns and unusual places chosen for it. One thing what left me debating with myself was the “bad guy” in this book, he was very well picked, but at the same time very obvious and predictable. Even though this book is a second part in the series, it can easily be a standalone mystery, because Ahern explained everything a “new reader” needs to know.
The writing style of this book changed as well. It is more skillful and there are more difficult terms used in this novel, but it did not make it difficult to read, it just felt richer. The chapters are decent length, and once again, divided into smaller parts. I was little bit disappointed with the ending of this book, author used the same technique as in first book and it does not leave me satisfied. I WANT JUSTICE!!! :) So, to conclude, I was really amused with this book and I do recommend to give it a go. It left me very pleasantly surprised with more action, aristocratic and incredibly complex and entertaining characters, the interesting secrets, findings, and incredibly annoying and horrible Derry’s mom (can’t stand that woman now).
Was given this book by author for honest review.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Rhythm Section (2019) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
An average thriller
The Rhythm Section is a 2020 action thriller based on a book of the same name written by Mark Burnell. Directed by Reed Moreno, it stars Blake Lively as Stephanie Patrick, a young woman bent on revenge against the terrorists who orchestrated a plane crash that killed her entire family.
From the very beginning, you can see the influences and similarities in this to other films and stories.
This has obviously taken inspiration from the likes of John Le Carre and is a rather dark and gritty take on the action thriller genre, with a decent amount of physical (and well choreographed) violence. However in all honesty, the originality here is severely lacking. I’ve seen countless revenge films and this is no different. There is little in this to make it stand out above all those that have come before it and it isn’t helped by a limited number of action scenes either to help ramp up the interest.
It doesn’t start off very well, as we find out about Stephanie’s life and how the death of her family turned her into a drug addict and a prostitute. It’s so clichéd that even Jude Law’s character Boyd mocks her for this later in the film, which whilst fun, doesn’t change the fact that they actually used this idea in the plot. There’s also the sketchy almost nonexistent reason for journalist Proctor (Raza Jeffrey) to reach out to Stephanie to tell her that the plane crash was caused by terrorists rather than an accident. It just doesn’t make any sense as to why he’d get Stephanie involved and the film doesn’t even try to explain this rationally. Same goes when Boyd takes in Stephanie and starts to train her as an assassin. Whilst a reason is eventually revealed, it isn’t entirely plausible and again doesn’t make any sense as to why he does this with a woman who has no background or knowledge in espionage or assassination.
Aside from the sketchy plot, there are some plus points. Blake Lively performs well (despite the often hideous wigs), and you can see that she’s really giving it her all and could really make it as an action star. The scenes featuring her and Jude Law are also entertaining to watch and give the film a more relaxed feeling, especially the earlier training scenes. One of the most likeable things about this thought for me was the score. It’s tense and dramatic and full of excitement, with pieces featuring strings, piano and percussion to the point where you begin to wonder if the title ‘The Rhythm Section’ isn’t more appropriate for the music rather than the explanation given during the film.
Sadly The Rhythm Section is a fairly average thriller that whilst boosted slightly by a good performance and score, is unfortunately not particularly memorable, especially with such a lacklustre ending.
From the very beginning, you can see the influences and similarities in this to other films and stories.
This has obviously taken inspiration from the likes of John Le Carre and is a rather dark and gritty take on the action thriller genre, with a decent amount of physical (and well choreographed) violence. However in all honesty, the originality here is severely lacking. I’ve seen countless revenge films and this is no different. There is little in this to make it stand out above all those that have come before it and it isn’t helped by a limited number of action scenes either to help ramp up the interest.
It doesn’t start off very well, as we find out about Stephanie’s life and how the death of her family turned her into a drug addict and a prostitute. It’s so clichéd that even Jude Law’s character Boyd mocks her for this later in the film, which whilst fun, doesn’t change the fact that they actually used this idea in the plot. There’s also the sketchy almost nonexistent reason for journalist Proctor (Raza Jeffrey) to reach out to Stephanie to tell her that the plane crash was caused by terrorists rather than an accident. It just doesn’t make any sense as to why he’d get Stephanie involved and the film doesn’t even try to explain this rationally. Same goes when Boyd takes in Stephanie and starts to train her as an assassin. Whilst a reason is eventually revealed, it isn’t entirely plausible and again doesn’t make any sense as to why he does this with a woman who has no background or knowledge in espionage or assassination.
Aside from the sketchy plot, there are some plus points. Blake Lively performs well (despite the often hideous wigs), and you can see that she’s really giving it her all and could really make it as an action star. The scenes featuring her and Jude Law are also entertaining to watch and give the film a more relaxed feeling, especially the earlier training scenes. One of the most likeable things about this thought for me was the score. It’s tense and dramatic and full of excitement, with pieces featuring strings, piano and percussion to the point where you begin to wonder if the title ‘The Rhythm Section’ isn’t more appropriate for the music rather than the explanation given during the film.
Sadly The Rhythm Section is a fairly average thriller that whilst boosted slightly by a good performance and score, is unfortunately not particularly memorable, especially with such a lacklustre ending.
Crop Video Square FREE - Square Video or Crop Zoom Rotate Trim Your Movie Clip or Landscape Vid into Square or Rectangle Size for Instagram
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
Crop the best position of your video. With CropVideoSquare™ easy and quick to Crop video or Photo...
Place Finder - Search Places Around Me
Navigation and Travel
App
Place Finder - Search Places Around Me App is a special kind of app that searches ATM, Restaurants,...
Bully: Anniversary Edition
Games
App
***PLEASE NOTE: This game is officially supported on the following devices only: iPhone 5, 5s, 5c,...
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.