Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Heard It in a Love Song in Books
Oct 28, 2021
Layla is recently divorced after a ten-year marriage to a man who never truly appreciated her and subjected her to constant financial and emotional stress. Once a lead singer in a rock band, Layla is now an elementary music teacher struggling to find her place in the world. One thing that brightens her day is her interactions with Josh, the father of one of her students. A single father, Josh was married to his high school sweetheart, Kimmy, for nearly twenty years. He too is trying to find his way now that he's single. Both wary about getting back into the dating grind, Layla and Josh decide to be "friends with potential." But with all their baggage, are they destined for heartbreak?
"And she wasn't lonely, not really. Layla had been lonely for years while she was married, and she'd take being alone over lonely any day."
I didn't dislike this book, but it wasn't the sweeping romance I was hoping for. This one redefined slow burner, as Josh and Layla sloowly made their way toward one another. Most of this is the format--told from both Layla and Josh's point of view, each chapter breaks off to delve into how that particular's character's marriage fell apart. So we may get a few moments of them in the present and then--boom--it quickly flashes back to Josh and Kimmy in high school or Layla and her ex-husband, Liam, meeting when Layla is singing in her band. Each piece is just a snippet, slowly parsed out per chapter and building up to the end of the marriage, so both the past and the present is a build-up. I admire the style, but wow... everything takes time. A lot of time! It made the story feel quite plodding at times.
And, I just couldn't quite find the spark between Layla and Josh. Individually, they were great people, and I liked and rooted for their characters to move on from their past relationships. Together, I just didn't feel that they had "it"--that special something that really makes you want a particular couple to succeed. I certainly desired for each to find themselves again, but I didn't necessarily need it to be with one another. I did, however, have great fondness for Norton, the older dog Josh adopts, and whom Layla often dog-sits. So there you go.
This isn't a bad book, and I know lots of people who enjoyed it. It received a 3-star rating from me, which is *not* a poor rating. It just wasn't what I was hoping for, and I had wanted more passion. But if you enjoy a character-driven read, especially one that really delves into the characters' pasts, you'll find a lot to love here. (Also the cover is simply gorgeous.)
"And she wasn't lonely, not really. Layla had been lonely for years while she was married, and she'd take being alone over lonely any day."
I didn't dislike this book, but it wasn't the sweeping romance I was hoping for. This one redefined slow burner, as Josh and Layla sloowly made their way toward one another. Most of this is the format--told from both Layla and Josh's point of view, each chapter breaks off to delve into how that particular's character's marriage fell apart. So we may get a few moments of them in the present and then--boom--it quickly flashes back to Josh and Kimmy in high school or Layla and her ex-husband, Liam, meeting when Layla is singing in her band. Each piece is just a snippet, slowly parsed out per chapter and building up to the end of the marriage, so both the past and the present is a build-up. I admire the style, but wow... everything takes time. A lot of time! It made the story feel quite plodding at times.
And, I just couldn't quite find the spark between Layla and Josh. Individually, they were great people, and I liked and rooted for their characters to move on from their past relationships. Together, I just didn't feel that they had "it"--that special something that really makes you want a particular couple to succeed. I certainly desired for each to find themselves again, but I didn't necessarily need it to be with one another. I did, however, have great fondness for Norton, the older dog Josh adopts, and whom Layla often dog-sits. So there you go.
This isn't a bad book, and I know lots of people who enjoyed it. It received a 3-star rating from me, which is *not* a poor rating. It just wasn't what I was hoping for, and I had wanted more passion. But if you enjoy a character-driven read, especially one that really delves into the characters' pasts, you'll find a lot to love here. (Also the cover is simply gorgeous.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Up (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2019
A Movie That Never Stumbles Towards its End Goal.
After the death of his wife (tear), Carl Fredericksen (Edward Asner) decides to tie a bunch of balloons to his house and fly off on a great adventure. He gets more than what he bargained for when he realizes he won’t be alone on this adventure.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Up has more power in its first twelve minutes than most films do in their entire runtime. I can watch this a dozen times and it still hits me the same exact way. It tells the story of the relationship between Carl and Ellie in all of its highs and lows. You will be hard-pressed to find a better beginning than this throughout the history of movies. There’s something so real and heartfelt about it that sucks you in and sets up Carl’s character perfectly.
Characters: 10
Life has turned Carl into a cranky old man whose everything hurts all the time. He takes no guff and, at the end of the day, just wants to be left alone. He is one of numerous rich characters than shine throughout the movie, both animal and human alike. Young boyscout Russell (Jordan Nagai) puts a smile on my face with every single scene that he’s in. He’s always willing to go above and beyond to help. So inquisitive, yet so clueless. Throw in Doug the talking dog and the awesome Snipe and you have the perfect mix of original characters you want to root for.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I was blown away by the amazing visuals Up has to offer. So many colors shoot out at you as you see the balloons hovering over Carl’s house for the first time. The house floats into Paradise Falls after surviving a wicked storm and you’re treated to just that—Paradise. Canyons and a tropical rainforest full of lush greenery. The detail that went into this animation is outstanding.
Conflict: 10
There is plenty of action to be had on this great adventure. What starts as an innocent trip is quickly disrupted by a storm that turns everything upside down. The adventure soars to new heights after that, never really slowing down much for you to check on the time. Beginnings are important, but middles even moreso, and the events that unfold during the meat of the film are fun and harrowing at the same time.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Up is like riding a smooth wave. Some moments are more intense than others, but you’re always headed towards an end goal of sorts. Bad pacing is filled with road blocks and unnecessary scenes, but Up manages to maximize its full runtime by making every single moment count.
Plot: 10
A beautiful story that couldn’t have been told in a more beautiful way. It’s fun and unique, definitely something you haven’t seen before. I honestly can’t think of a better way it could have been done.
Resolution: 10
I’m one of the few weirdos who was touched just as much by the ending as I was the beginning. It makes you happy to see what befalls the characters, yet a bit sad as you realize the movie is reaching its conclusion. At the end, Up doesn’t linger. It does what it needs to do and concludes perfectly.
Overall: 100
There is a reason Up is one of three animated movies nominated for Best Picture. It is one of the greatest movies ever made and tops my all-time list as of 5/30/2019. Noticed I didn’t say “one of the greatest animated movies”, but one of the greatest MOVIES. It’s an all-timer driven by great character relationships and powerful, emotion-filled scenes.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Up has more power in its first twelve minutes than most films do in their entire runtime. I can watch this a dozen times and it still hits me the same exact way. It tells the story of the relationship between Carl and Ellie in all of its highs and lows. You will be hard-pressed to find a better beginning than this throughout the history of movies. There’s something so real and heartfelt about it that sucks you in and sets up Carl’s character perfectly.
Characters: 10
Life has turned Carl into a cranky old man whose everything hurts all the time. He takes no guff and, at the end of the day, just wants to be left alone. He is one of numerous rich characters than shine throughout the movie, both animal and human alike. Young boyscout Russell (Jordan Nagai) puts a smile on my face with every single scene that he’s in. He’s always willing to go above and beyond to help. So inquisitive, yet so clueless. Throw in Doug the talking dog and the awesome Snipe and you have the perfect mix of original characters you want to root for.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I was blown away by the amazing visuals Up has to offer. So many colors shoot out at you as you see the balloons hovering over Carl’s house for the first time. The house floats into Paradise Falls after surviving a wicked storm and you’re treated to just that—Paradise. Canyons and a tropical rainforest full of lush greenery. The detail that went into this animation is outstanding.
Conflict: 10
There is plenty of action to be had on this great adventure. What starts as an innocent trip is quickly disrupted by a storm that turns everything upside down. The adventure soars to new heights after that, never really slowing down much for you to check on the time. Beginnings are important, but middles even moreso, and the events that unfold during the meat of the film are fun and harrowing at the same time.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Up is like riding a smooth wave. Some moments are more intense than others, but you’re always headed towards an end goal of sorts. Bad pacing is filled with road blocks and unnecessary scenes, but Up manages to maximize its full runtime by making every single moment count.
Plot: 10
A beautiful story that couldn’t have been told in a more beautiful way. It’s fun and unique, definitely something you haven’t seen before. I honestly can’t think of a better way it could have been done.
Resolution: 10
I’m one of the few weirdos who was touched just as much by the ending as I was the beginning. It makes you happy to see what befalls the characters, yet a bit sad as you realize the movie is reaching its conclusion. At the end, Up doesn’t linger. It does what it needs to do and concludes perfectly.
Overall: 100
There is a reason Up is one of three animated movies nominated for Best Picture. It is one of the greatest movies ever made and tops my all-time list as of 5/30/2019. Noticed I didn’t say “one of the greatest animated movies”, but one of the greatest MOVIES. It’s an all-timer driven by great character relationships and powerful, emotion-filled scenes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer 0f 2008 movie season kicks off in a big way with the release of “Iron Man”, the latest in a long line of popular Marvel Comics superheroes to make the leap to the big screen.
Robert Downey JR. stars as Tony Stark a Billionaire playboy who owns a vast company that is known mainly for manufacturing weapon systems. When the film opens, Stark is ambushed shortly after a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan and is wounded by the attackers who take Stark into captivity.
Using a device to keep the shrapnel from his vital organs and thus keep him alive, Stark is forced to create a weapon for his captors who plan to use the creative genius of Stark for their own nefarious schemes.
Stark turns the tables on his captors and devices a special suit which allows him to escape, and eventually make his way back to America after three long and harrowing months of captivity.
One back in home, Stark starts to take stock of his life and realizes that many of the weapons he designed to protect America are now being used by other factions to kill those they were designed to protect. When Stark announces to the press that he is stopping the manufacture of weapons by his company he is viewed as suffering from the long captivity and finds himself at odds with the shareholders and board of directors, as well as his long time advisor and friend Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges).
Undaunted, Stark begins to build a prototype suit in his lab, and soon emerges as an iron clad crusader who is obsessed with keeping the bad guys from using the weapons his company created against the innocent.
Assisted by his friend in the military Colonel Rhodes (Terrance Howard) and the lovely Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Tony Stark soon finds himself caught in an even more dastardly plot, and needs every ounce of his creativity and his latest invention to keep the world safe.
The movie is a pure delight and it was nice to see a summer movie that actually had some plot and character development, and did not try to dumb the material down for the audience or let the film be carried entirely by the special effects.
The movie also has some moments of good humor which work well within the film as much of it comes from the quick wit of or at the expense of Stark.
Robert Downey JR. is perfect in the role as he perfectly captures the character without making him to over the top as often is the case in many comic adaptations. He portrays Stark exactly as he is portrayed in the comics, a hard drinking womanizer, who is forced to take stock of his life, and make changes.
The supporting performances by Paltrow, Howard, and Bridges help make the film stand out as does the solid work by Director John Favreau who clearly has a grasp on the character and story and thankfully took the time to establish the characters and the premise before rushing Downey into the Iron Man suit.
When the action comes it is solid, and shines with modern effects, but never once overshadow the fact that this is a character driven story. The action teases the audience with the full potential of the suit, which I am sure will be explored further in future films.
Many times summer films arrive in a frenzy of hype and expectations only to be little more than thinly plotted films awash in FX that fail to satisfy. I am happy to say that “Iron Man” is the rare exception to the recent trend and is easily one of the best Super Hero Films ever crafted.
Robert Downey JR. stars as Tony Stark a Billionaire playboy who owns a vast company that is known mainly for manufacturing weapon systems. When the film opens, Stark is ambushed shortly after a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan and is wounded by the attackers who take Stark into captivity.
Using a device to keep the shrapnel from his vital organs and thus keep him alive, Stark is forced to create a weapon for his captors who plan to use the creative genius of Stark for their own nefarious schemes.
Stark turns the tables on his captors and devices a special suit which allows him to escape, and eventually make his way back to America after three long and harrowing months of captivity.
One back in home, Stark starts to take stock of his life and realizes that many of the weapons he designed to protect America are now being used by other factions to kill those they were designed to protect. When Stark announces to the press that he is stopping the manufacture of weapons by his company he is viewed as suffering from the long captivity and finds himself at odds with the shareholders and board of directors, as well as his long time advisor and friend Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges).
Undaunted, Stark begins to build a prototype suit in his lab, and soon emerges as an iron clad crusader who is obsessed with keeping the bad guys from using the weapons his company created against the innocent.
Assisted by his friend in the military Colonel Rhodes (Terrance Howard) and the lovely Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Tony Stark soon finds himself caught in an even more dastardly plot, and needs every ounce of his creativity and his latest invention to keep the world safe.
The movie is a pure delight and it was nice to see a summer movie that actually had some plot and character development, and did not try to dumb the material down for the audience or let the film be carried entirely by the special effects.
The movie also has some moments of good humor which work well within the film as much of it comes from the quick wit of or at the expense of Stark.
Robert Downey JR. is perfect in the role as he perfectly captures the character without making him to over the top as often is the case in many comic adaptations. He portrays Stark exactly as he is portrayed in the comics, a hard drinking womanizer, who is forced to take stock of his life, and make changes.
The supporting performances by Paltrow, Howard, and Bridges help make the film stand out as does the solid work by Director John Favreau who clearly has a grasp on the character and story and thankfully took the time to establish the characters and the premise before rushing Downey into the Iron Man suit.
When the action comes it is solid, and shines with modern effects, but never once overshadow the fact that this is a character driven story. The action teases the audience with the full potential of the suit, which I am sure will be explored further in future films.
Many times summer films arrive in a frenzy of hype and expectations only to be little more than thinly plotted films awash in FX that fail to satisfy. I am happy to say that “Iron Man” is the rare exception to the recent trend and is easily one of the best Super Hero Films ever crafted.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Mar 21, 2020
It's nice to get a different side of the comic book genre for once, I'm still suffering from Marvel/Avengers fatigue so this was a welcome diversion.
After a successful operation, soldier Ray Garrison has come home to take his beautiful wife of a well deserved break. What he doesn't realise is that he's being tracked by a team who are looking for information, and they'll do anything it takes to get it.
Waking up in a high tech lab with no memory Ray discovers that his body has been donated to a company after his death. RSC are pioneers in enhancements to the human body, taking people who might otherwise be given up on and giving them a new lease of life.
When you've had one of those days and you need some gratuitous violence you can't really go wrong with a Vin Diesel films... can you?
I can't say I ever go into films like this expecting a "masterpiece" of cinema, I was just hoping for some solid entertainment and it certainly gives that.
Enhanced humans always offer that level of escapism that allows for a few faux pas to come across as less obvious, but the trailer made me raise an eyebrow. The effects didn't look great in the few snippets we got, luckily, on seeing the final product thought I was pleasantly surprised. The close up action that wouldn't require major stunts were excellent and believable, I didn't feel like there were any holes to pick... until the elevator scene. You'll clearly see the graphic work and it's a real shame it is so bad in comparison to the rest, there's also a terrible chase scene that has no natural movement in it either.
It's not often Vin strays from a certain type of character so we get exactly what you'd expect from his portrayal of Ray Garrison, a driven "bad guy" with a reason to be mad at a lot of stuff. It's not groundbreaking but it's always fun to see.
Eiza Gonzalez as KT gets a good range to work with, she gives us an excellent character with a reasonable amount of depth compared to her counterparts... who I had to call Legs and Eyes in my notes because at no point did I notice if they had names or not.
Our bad guy was obviously Guy Pearce seems about right for him. It wasn't really out of his comfort zone either though and despite him being great as Dr Emil Harting it wasn't really pushing any boundaries.
Visually this film is pretty good, the fight sequence we get glimpses of during the trailer uses colour well and has some amusing little touches in it. A bit of humour and some shots that I'd associate with horror/thriller movies build that excitement and tension well. There's also a well edited montage that's used to great effect to show the audience an event succinctly without it becoming boring, which is always greatly appreciated in films.
There are a few comments I have but they definitely constitute spoilers so I'll keep them to myself, but there's nothing that majorly added or detracted from the film for me beyond what I've mentioned already.
As I said at the beginning, it's nice to have a different comic book entity on our screens and I think the story is a good one, we're thankfully given an interesting set of characters to focus on and that helps the story stay a little lighter. You know how I like an origin tale though and this seems a bit short on that bit of discovery. I've got the graphic novel to read though so I'm interested to see where it deviates. Despite its minor (and slightly major action CGI) issues I really enjoyed Bloodshot, Ray's anger issues really helped get out some frustration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloodshot-movie-review.html
After a successful operation, soldier Ray Garrison has come home to take his beautiful wife of a well deserved break. What he doesn't realise is that he's being tracked by a team who are looking for information, and they'll do anything it takes to get it.
Waking up in a high tech lab with no memory Ray discovers that his body has been donated to a company after his death. RSC are pioneers in enhancements to the human body, taking people who might otherwise be given up on and giving them a new lease of life.
When you've had one of those days and you need some gratuitous violence you can't really go wrong with a Vin Diesel films... can you?
I can't say I ever go into films like this expecting a "masterpiece" of cinema, I was just hoping for some solid entertainment and it certainly gives that.
Enhanced humans always offer that level of escapism that allows for a few faux pas to come across as less obvious, but the trailer made me raise an eyebrow. The effects didn't look great in the few snippets we got, luckily, on seeing the final product thought I was pleasantly surprised. The close up action that wouldn't require major stunts were excellent and believable, I didn't feel like there were any holes to pick... until the elevator scene. You'll clearly see the graphic work and it's a real shame it is so bad in comparison to the rest, there's also a terrible chase scene that has no natural movement in it either.
It's not often Vin strays from a certain type of character so we get exactly what you'd expect from his portrayal of Ray Garrison, a driven "bad guy" with a reason to be mad at a lot of stuff. It's not groundbreaking but it's always fun to see.
Eiza Gonzalez as KT gets a good range to work with, she gives us an excellent character with a reasonable amount of depth compared to her counterparts... who I had to call Legs and Eyes in my notes because at no point did I notice if they had names or not.
Our bad guy was obviously Guy Pearce seems about right for him. It wasn't really out of his comfort zone either though and despite him being great as Dr Emil Harting it wasn't really pushing any boundaries.
Visually this film is pretty good, the fight sequence we get glimpses of during the trailer uses colour well and has some amusing little touches in it. A bit of humour and some shots that I'd associate with horror/thriller movies build that excitement and tension well. There's also a well edited montage that's used to great effect to show the audience an event succinctly without it becoming boring, which is always greatly appreciated in films.
There are a few comments I have but they definitely constitute spoilers so I'll keep them to myself, but there's nothing that majorly added or detracted from the film for me beyond what I've mentioned already.
As I said at the beginning, it's nice to have a different comic book entity on our screens and I think the story is a good one, we're thankfully given an interesting set of characters to focus on and that helps the story stay a little lighter. You know how I like an origin tale though and this seems a bit short on that bit of discovery. I've got the graphic novel to read though so I'm interested to see where it deviates. Despite its minor (and slightly major action CGI) issues I really enjoyed Bloodshot, Ray's anger issues really helped get out some frustration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloodshot-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Beauty (1999) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: American Beauty starts narration from our lead Lester Burnham (Spacey) explaining his life and that he will be dead in a year. Lester lives through the same old routine and is overall tired of his life. Lester is married to Carolyn (Bening) a real estate agent and has a teenage daughter Jane (Birch) who is struggling with the typical teenage problems. Lester is being pressured by his new boss who he thinks has no experience in the field.
Lester & Carolyn decide to take more interest in their daughter’s life which includes going to watch her cheer leading performance where Lester starts getting an instant fascination with fellow cheerleader Angela Hayes (Suvari). The Burnham’s have just got new neighbours in the Fitts, Colonel (Cooper) and his son Ricky (Bentley) who has an obsession with filming his everyday life. What follows is a look into suburban life.
American Beauty manages to balance every character to end up telling a story of everyday life and how it can change because the people closest to you really don’t know what you are up too. We get to look closer are how the perception of a person can hide the reality that is going on in the life and we get to see the different things that could happen. It is hard to really discuss too much about this film because I have looked into the characters closer next and this film is very much character driven which helps the story shine through. (10/10)
Actor Review
Kevin Spacey: Lester Burnham is an average man who is tired of the same old routine and decides to break out, he gets himself fired, starts taking drugs all while obsessing over his daughters friend. Kevin gives a brilliant performance but as you would expect from him. (10/10)
lester
Annette Bening: Carolyn Burnham is a real estate agent who puts on a brave face all while struggling with her own problems leading to her having an affair as her relationship with Lester starts to get stretched. Annette shines here with mixed emotions about Lester through the film. (10/10)
caroluyn
Thora Birch: Jane Burnham is the moodiest cheerleader ever who doesn’t seem to get the attention a cheerleader gets from the guys, she is best friends most beautiful girl in school who gets all the attention, but Jane does attract the new neighbour who helps her come out of her shell. Thora gives a great performance showing that she was ready to break through in the role. (9/10)
jane
Wes Bentley: Ricky Fitts is the new neighbour that could be considered weird because of his obsession with filming everything in life, he also ends up being a drug dealer and the one that Lester uses, all while dealing with an over aggressive father. Wes shows all his talent here but it is a shame this is the highlight of his career to date. (9/10)
ricky
Mena Suvari: Angela Hayes is the beautiful girl from school that thinks all the guys want her but when Lester takes a shine to her we learn the truth about her nature. Mena comes away from her American Pie role with this much more adult role showing she didn’t need to just be a teen comedy star. (9/10)
angela
Chris Cooper: Colonel Fitts is the strict father of Ricky who hates everything that is different to his way of thinking, he is a generation behind but he really just wants to protect his son. Chris does a great job as the strict father because we just don’t know what his character will do next. (9/10)
Support Cast: American Beauty doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast with most just turning up in the odd scene while we focus on the main cast through the film.
Director Review: Sam Mendes – Sam burst onto the scene with this stunning piece of directing that will always be known as a classic. (10/10)
Drama: American Beauty shows the lives of these six people and manages to make us care about them all. (10/10)
Romance: American Beauty shows different levels of romance, we get a blossoming starting one, we have a long term one falling apart and we get to see the unavailable ones. (9/10)
Settings: American Beauty gives everything a realistic setting for the story being told through the film. (9/10)
Suggestion: American Beauty is absolute must watch for anyone, it will always go down as a classic in the history of film. (Must Watch)
Best Part: Lester getting fired.
Worst Part: While it is a brilliant drama, the casual fans will find this harder to find interesting.
Funniest Scene: Lester reacting to Angela spending the night.
Favourite Quote: Lester ‘Remember those posters that said, “Today is the first day of the rest of your life”? Well, that’s true of every day but one – the day you die.’
Believability: I do think this has plenty of realistic ideas of relationships but I do think the end wouldn’t happen. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 5 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Dest Directing, Best Cinematography and Best Screenplay. It was also nominated for another 3.
Box Office: $356 Million
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 2 Minutes
Tagline: … look closer
Trivia: Both Oscar winners Kevin Spacey and Chris Cooper got their film career starts playing New York subway criminals. Spacey played an untitled mugger in Heartburn. Cooper played a pyromaniac in Money Train.
Overall: American Beauty is a classic that will always be remembered once you have seen it.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/08/01/american-beauty-1999/
Lester & Carolyn decide to take more interest in their daughter’s life which includes going to watch her cheer leading performance where Lester starts getting an instant fascination with fellow cheerleader Angela Hayes (Suvari). The Burnham’s have just got new neighbours in the Fitts, Colonel (Cooper) and his son Ricky (Bentley) who has an obsession with filming his everyday life. What follows is a look into suburban life.
American Beauty manages to balance every character to end up telling a story of everyday life and how it can change because the people closest to you really don’t know what you are up too. We get to look closer are how the perception of a person can hide the reality that is going on in the life and we get to see the different things that could happen. It is hard to really discuss too much about this film because I have looked into the characters closer next and this film is very much character driven which helps the story shine through. (10/10)
Actor Review
Kevin Spacey: Lester Burnham is an average man who is tired of the same old routine and decides to break out, he gets himself fired, starts taking drugs all while obsessing over his daughters friend. Kevin gives a brilliant performance but as you would expect from him. (10/10)
lester
Annette Bening: Carolyn Burnham is a real estate agent who puts on a brave face all while struggling with her own problems leading to her having an affair as her relationship with Lester starts to get stretched. Annette shines here with mixed emotions about Lester through the film. (10/10)
caroluyn
Thora Birch: Jane Burnham is the moodiest cheerleader ever who doesn’t seem to get the attention a cheerleader gets from the guys, she is best friends most beautiful girl in school who gets all the attention, but Jane does attract the new neighbour who helps her come out of her shell. Thora gives a great performance showing that she was ready to break through in the role. (9/10)
jane
Wes Bentley: Ricky Fitts is the new neighbour that could be considered weird because of his obsession with filming everything in life, he also ends up being a drug dealer and the one that Lester uses, all while dealing with an over aggressive father. Wes shows all his talent here but it is a shame this is the highlight of his career to date. (9/10)
ricky
Mena Suvari: Angela Hayes is the beautiful girl from school that thinks all the guys want her but when Lester takes a shine to her we learn the truth about her nature. Mena comes away from her American Pie role with this much more adult role showing she didn’t need to just be a teen comedy star. (9/10)
angela
Chris Cooper: Colonel Fitts is the strict father of Ricky who hates everything that is different to his way of thinking, he is a generation behind but he really just wants to protect his son. Chris does a great job as the strict father because we just don’t know what his character will do next. (9/10)
Support Cast: American Beauty doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast with most just turning up in the odd scene while we focus on the main cast through the film.
Director Review: Sam Mendes – Sam burst onto the scene with this stunning piece of directing that will always be known as a classic. (10/10)
Drama: American Beauty shows the lives of these six people and manages to make us care about them all. (10/10)
Romance: American Beauty shows different levels of romance, we get a blossoming starting one, we have a long term one falling apart and we get to see the unavailable ones. (9/10)
Settings: American Beauty gives everything a realistic setting for the story being told through the film. (9/10)
Suggestion: American Beauty is absolute must watch for anyone, it will always go down as a classic in the history of film. (Must Watch)
Best Part: Lester getting fired.
Worst Part: While it is a brilliant drama, the casual fans will find this harder to find interesting.
Funniest Scene: Lester reacting to Angela spending the night.
Favourite Quote: Lester ‘Remember those posters that said, “Today is the first day of the rest of your life”? Well, that’s true of every day but one – the day you die.’
Believability: I do think this has plenty of realistic ideas of relationships but I do think the end wouldn’t happen. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 5 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Dest Directing, Best Cinematography and Best Screenplay. It was also nominated for another 3.
Box Office: $356 Million
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 2 Minutes
Tagline: … look closer
Trivia: Both Oscar winners Kevin Spacey and Chris Cooper got their film career starts playing New York subway criminals. Spacey played an untitled mugger in Heartburn. Cooper played a pyromaniac in Money Train.
Overall: American Beauty is a classic that will always be remembered once you have seen it.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/08/01/american-beauty-1999/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 23, 2018
Come for Denzel, stay for...well...there isn't much else to stay for
Denzel Washington is one of the finest actors of his generation. A charismatic screen presence, he commands the viewer's attention whether he is performing a comedy, drama or action film. He has won 2 Oscars as a performer and has been nominated for his acting 6 other times - including (rightfully so) for his performance as the titular character in ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ.
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rosemary's Baby (1968) in Movies
Jan 13, 2019
Good...Not Great
Rosemary’s Baby takes you down a rabbit hole and you have no idea what’s waiting for you at the other end. It drove me mad at times as I tried to figure out just what exactly was going on. The story follows a couple and the strange happenings that ensure when they move into a new apartment complex.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
I’m watching this movie as I write this as I typically try and do when I write reviews. The beginning is intriguing because it’s chocked full of foreshadowing. Hints are dropped here and there and you recognize almost instantly that something is off. Great job here of being subtle without being overbearing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film succeeds with a visual jarring aspect where you never really gain your footing. You spend most of the film trying to figure out up from down and that’s in large part due to the fact that nothing really seems out of sorts…except for a few things here and there. Director Roman Polanski is like a cat owner with a laser pointer directing your attention in the right place for a bit then redirecting. Everything is under the surface waiting to boil over.
Conflict: 8
As the film progresses and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) descends into madness, you are hoping she can unravel the mystery of what exactly is happening. The conflict comes in the tension of the movements, the things moving under the surface that you know are there. Every new occurrence brings you closer to the truth and makes things more tense.
Genre: 4
This was probably a solid pass for the 1960’s, but it’s honestly pretty tame for today’s standards. I might catch some heat for not respecting the time period it was filmed in, but if we are identifying this as a horror film, then it pales in comparison to some of the horror that has kept me up at night. Also, when I compare it to a film like The Birds from the same period, it comes up short for me.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Things move quickly enough, especially after the famous “dream sequence” that occurs. The pace is driven by the mystery of all the craziness unfolding. You are looking for answers along with Rosemary. A handful of scenes could have been shortened, but things never really drag on for the most part.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
Probably my biggest issue with the film. I won’t ruin it, but after everything that transpired, I was looking for a bit more hope for Rosemary. A few tweaks here and there may have altered my opinion of the entire film as a whole.
Overall: 74
Great cinematic storytelling isn’t quite enough to elevate Rosemary’s Baby to a classic in my opinion. Intriguing but not earth-shattering. Worth a one-time watch.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
I’m watching this movie as I write this as I typically try and do when I write reviews. The beginning is intriguing because it’s chocked full of foreshadowing. Hints are dropped here and there and you recognize almost instantly that something is off. Great job here of being subtle without being overbearing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film succeeds with a visual jarring aspect where you never really gain your footing. You spend most of the film trying to figure out up from down and that’s in large part due to the fact that nothing really seems out of sorts…except for a few things here and there. Director Roman Polanski is like a cat owner with a laser pointer directing your attention in the right place for a bit then redirecting. Everything is under the surface waiting to boil over.
Conflict: 8
As the film progresses and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) descends into madness, you are hoping she can unravel the mystery of what exactly is happening. The conflict comes in the tension of the movements, the things moving under the surface that you know are there. Every new occurrence brings you closer to the truth and makes things more tense.
Genre: 4
This was probably a solid pass for the 1960’s, but it’s honestly pretty tame for today’s standards. I might catch some heat for not respecting the time period it was filmed in, but if we are identifying this as a horror film, then it pales in comparison to some of the horror that has kept me up at night. Also, when I compare it to a film like The Birds from the same period, it comes up short for me.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Things move quickly enough, especially after the famous “dream sequence” that occurs. The pace is driven by the mystery of all the craziness unfolding. You are looking for answers along with Rosemary. A handful of scenes could have been shortened, but things never really drag on for the most part.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
Probably my biggest issue with the film. I won’t ruin it, but after everything that transpired, I was looking for a bit more hope for Rosemary. A few tweaks here and there may have altered my opinion of the entire film as a whole.
Overall: 74
Great cinematic storytelling isn’t quite enough to elevate Rosemary’s Baby to a classic in my opinion. Intriguing but not earth-shattering. Worth a one-time watch.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Playing Nice in Books
Sep 17, 2020
Fast-paced thriller that plays on your emotions
Pete Riley, his wife Maddie, and young son Theo have their lives upended one day when two strangers show up on their doorstep. One claims to be Theo's biological father, Miles Lambert. He tells Pete that Theo and another baby, David--whom the Lamberts have been raising--were switched at the hospital and sent home with the unsuspecting families. Suddenly Pete and Maddie have been raising "the wrong" child for the past two years. The families form a friendship based on their shock, agreeing not to upend the children's lives. But as the Lamberts prepare to the sue hospital, questions are raised, and soon Pete and Maddie start to wonder how much they can trust Miles and his wife, Lucy. What are they hiding--and how far will they go to get Theo back?
"'I'm sorry to have to tell you that Theo isn't your son. He's mine.'"
Delaney's latest is a fast and compulsive read. Told in alternating perspectives from Maddie and Pete, with some flashes to the past, the book is stressful and makes you think. What would I do in this situation? And what a terrible situation to be in. With both boys being two-years-old, they are already comfortable in their family lives. At first, each family is determined not to switch the children back. But it soon becomes clear that Theo is progressing better than David, who requires more specialized care. Is that what's affecting Miles out-sized affection for his newfound son? His constant, unannounced appearances on Pete and Maddie's doorstep? Meanwhile, Maddie feels wracked with guilt at leaving David behind. The emotions and decisions are clearly complicated.
I myself was fascinated that Delaney brought up a "baby switch" case in Charlottesville, VA at the hospital where I was born, though far earlier. If I had known about this case, I must have forgotten; I would have been in my mid-teens and probably not caring about such things at the time. Anyway, it was intriguing to hear a local reference, and it totally pushed me down the rabbit hole of researching that case (which is completely tragic).
It's hard to truly like any of these characters, even Maddie and Pete, who are initially sympathetic. Let's not even get started on Miles, who truly plays the villain well. But I appreciated that the characters and their feelings are complicated and well-portrayed here. While much of the story is character-driven, it's also a mystery, unraveling what happened when the boys were switched, and it's quite interesting.
The plot in this one moves quickly, escalating fast. I predicted the ending, but it didn't do much to diminish my enjoyment of the book. If you're looking for a different and fast-paced thriller, which also gets you thinking about emotional family dilemmas, definitely recommend. 3.5 stars.
"'I'm sorry to have to tell you that Theo isn't your son. He's mine.'"
Delaney's latest is a fast and compulsive read. Told in alternating perspectives from Maddie and Pete, with some flashes to the past, the book is stressful and makes you think. What would I do in this situation? And what a terrible situation to be in. With both boys being two-years-old, they are already comfortable in their family lives. At first, each family is determined not to switch the children back. But it soon becomes clear that Theo is progressing better than David, who requires more specialized care. Is that what's affecting Miles out-sized affection for his newfound son? His constant, unannounced appearances on Pete and Maddie's doorstep? Meanwhile, Maddie feels wracked with guilt at leaving David behind. The emotions and decisions are clearly complicated.
I myself was fascinated that Delaney brought up a "baby switch" case in Charlottesville, VA at the hospital where I was born, though far earlier. If I had known about this case, I must have forgotten; I would have been in my mid-teens and probably not caring about such things at the time. Anyway, it was intriguing to hear a local reference, and it totally pushed me down the rabbit hole of researching that case (which is completely tragic).
It's hard to truly like any of these characters, even Maddie and Pete, who are initially sympathetic. Let's not even get started on Miles, who truly plays the villain well. But I appreciated that the characters and their feelings are complicated and well-portrayed here. While much of the story is character-driven, it's also a mystery, unraveling what happened when the boys were switched, and it's quite interesting.
The plot in this one moves quickly, escalating fast. I predicted the ending, but it didn't do much to diminish my enjoyment of the book. If you're looking for a different and fast-paced thriller, which also gets you thinking about emotional family dilemmas, definitely recommend. 3.5 stars.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Rodriguez is not a good director. He isn’t an especially good writer or producer either. This is the guy responsible for four Spy Kids films, that start below average and downgrade exponentially into excruciatingly awful. What he is pretty good at is ideas, and seeing the potential of something visually arresting and exciting. That is what led to the success of Sin City, arguably his best effort to date, because he saw how the comic book creations of Frank Miller could become live action and he made it happen.
Alita: Battle Angel is a similar deal. This time Yukito Kishiro’s early 90s manga creation is the inspiration. With James Cameron as producer, and the considerable talents of Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Connelly and Mahershala Ali onboard, it would have been pretty hard for even Rodriguez to mess this up entirely. Although at times he does seem to try, mostly by doing too much and making certain sections too busy and too confusingly cross-genre, like he is frantically trying to colour within the lines whilst using every felt-tip in the pack. A habit that means every now and again something great happens, but you may have missed it in all the background noise.
Compare this film, that just falls short of qualifying for my Bad Movie Triple Bill list, to Spielberg’s superior yet similarly busy Ready Player One. Both involve high concept future realities that are very tech and AI driven. Both make extensive use of CGI and vivid colour palettes. Both are frenetic and demand an audience pays attention in order to fully appreciate the storyline. The difference is that one zig-zags back and forth in tone and momentum, and one is razor sharp in moving us from one idea to the next on a perfect learning curve towards a satisfying climax and conclusion. Guess which one is which? This is why Spielberg is Spielberg and Rodriguez is… a hack.
That said, Alita as a character and concept is charming, and you do therefore find yourself at least wanting to discover her story. The action scenes are also quite electric, and the visuals are often breath-taking. But the whole is less than the sum of the parts here, and we are left with something that can only really exist in the same box as dozens of admirable sci-fi B-movies aimed at teenagers, such as The Maze Runner, Mortal Engines and The City of Ember. It also continues to prove the point alongside Ghost in the Shell and Speed Racer that Anime / Manga into live action is a very tricky business.
There is definitely an audience out there for this movie, and I dare say at some point I will be tempted to give it another watch. What is definitely worth watching however, is how James Cameron uses this as a stepping stone to perfecting virtual humans on the big screen. I am sure everyone involved learned a lot in that respect, so all is far from lost.
Alita: Battle Angel is a similar deal. This time Yukito Kishiro’s early 90s manga creation is the inspiration. With James Cameron as producer, and the considerable talents of Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Connelly and Mahershala Ali onboard, it would have been pretty hard for even Rodriguez to mess this up entirely. Although at times he does seem to try, mostly by doing too much and making certain sections too busy and too confusingly cross-genre, like he is frantically trying to colour within the lines whilst using every felt-tip in the pack. A habit that means every now and again something great happens, but you may have missed it in all the background noise.
Compare this film, that just falls short of qualifying for my Bad Movie Triple Bill list, to Spielberg’s superior yet similarly busy Ready Player One. Both involve high concept future realities that are very tech and AI driven. Both make extensive use of CGI and vivid colour palettes. Both are frenetic and demand an audience pays attention in order to fully appreciate the storyline. The difference is that one zig-zags back and forth in tone and momentum, and one is razor sharp in moving us from one idea to the next on a perfect learning curve towards a satisfying climax and conclusion. Guess which one is which? This is why Spielberg is Spielberg and Rodriguez is… a hack.
That said, Alita as a character and concept is charming, and you do therefore find yourself at least wanting to discover her story. The action scenes are also quite electric, and the visuals are often breath-taking. But the whole is less than the sum of the parts here, and we are left with something that can only really exist in the same box as dozens of admirable sci-fi B-movies aimed at teenagers, such as The Maze Runner, Mortal Engines and The City of Ember. It also continues to prove the point alongside Ghost in the Shell and Speed Racer that Anime / Manga into live action is a very tricky business.
There is definitely an audience out there for this movie, and I dare say at some point I will be tempted to give it another watch. What is definitely worth watching however, is how James Cameron uses this as a stepping stone to perfecting virtual humans on the big screen. I am sure everyone involved learned a lot in that respect, so all is far from lost.