Search
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Did You See Melody? in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Yikes. This was bad, really bad. This started off as a buddy read with my reading pal Nicki @ The Secret Library, but she couldnt even finish this one
and I dont blame her!
<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>
First off, lets talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.
Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way she was just a bitch. She didnt speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.
Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnies character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isnt. Not in the slightest.
Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.
As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. Im not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melodys case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important twisty bits.
Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.
For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like its not a hugely important case to find a girl whos been believed dead for years and years.
The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasnt interested anymore and they didnt do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didnt entertain me.
Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didnt get it the first time and I mean very simple things... like the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left. Yeah, no shit.
This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!
You might be thinking but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star? well, I dont really get 1 star book reviews if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didnt put this one down so something about it kept me going but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>
First off, lets talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.
Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way she was just a bitch. She didnt speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.
Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnies character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isnt. Not in the slightest.
Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.
As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. Im not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melodys case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important twisty bits.
Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.
For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like its not a hugely important case to find a girl whos been believed dead for years and years.
The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasnt interested anymore and they didnt do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didnt entertain me.
Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didnt get it the first time and I mean very simple things... like the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left. Yeah, no shit.
This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!
You might be thinking but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star? well, I dont really get 1 star book reviews if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didnt put this one down so something about it kept me going but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Welcome back to Jumanji
How dare they make a sequel/remake/reboot of Jumanji? I mean that film was a classic. Admittedly a very average classic that doesn’t really live up to your childhood memory of it, but still. And, yeah, Zathura was a kind of remake given it was adapted from a book by the same writer and explored the same themes, but nobody watched that, so how dare they do a new Jumanji film? I mean it’s only 22 years since the original came out!
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
May 18, 2019
"I can save today, you can save the world"
Remember when some trickster claiming to be a former worker from Warner Bros. wrote an open letter saying that Wonder Woman was just another mess of a DC movie, et cetera? I remember how Patty Jenkins responded to that. She tweeted: "Just wait and you'll see".
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Piece Of The World in Books
May 30, 2018
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, A Piece of the World is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Christina’s World (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting Christina’s World, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
A Piece of the World is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, A Piece of the World is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, A Piece of the World is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Christina’s World (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting Christina’s World, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
A Piece of the World is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, A Piece of the World is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Piece Of The World in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, <i>A Piece of the World</i> is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: <i>Christina’s World</i> (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be <i>Charcot-Marie-Tooth</i> disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting <i>Christina’s World</i>, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
<i>A Piece of the World</i> is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, </i>A Piece of the World</i> is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
<imgsrc="https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=33c151dba7f8de4c"width="100"height="40"alt="ChristinasWorld"/>;
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, <i>A Piece of the World</i> is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: <i>Christina’s World</i> (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be <i>Charcot-Marie-Tooth</i> disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting <i>Christina’s World</i>, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
<i>A Piece of the World</i> is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, </i>A Piece of the World</i> is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
<imgsrc="https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=33c151dba7f8de4c"width="100"height="40"alt="ChristinasWorld"/>;
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
In this day and age, where Star Wars is beloved by so many, and more recently met with sighs and trepidation by just as many, it's a franchise that easily faces scrutiny.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Alienated: Grounded At Groom Lake in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-31.png"/>;
Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake by Jeff Norton was the perfect middle grade quarantine book I was waiting for! Also - during the quarantine, Jeff is reading a chapter a day on his YouTube Channel, so please do check it out. His reading is wonderful!
From the first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I was going to like this book.
Fourteen-year-old Sherman is used to moving schools. But he's never been to a school like Groom Lake High, the high school for aliens.
It's a very alien environment for him, and he has to fit in. He quickly makes friends with a gang of galactic misfits. When the school bully NED endangers planet Earth, Sherman and his friends have to do anything they can to stop him!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
The thing I loved most about Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake was the amazing word play and inside jokes. It is very well thought and written and I really enjoyed it! There were so many puns and witty jokes that a children might initially miss, but will definitely make an adult chuckle.
<b><i>"It suddenly struck me that Facebook might be one of the alien inventions we were all using. I had seen its inventor on TV once and he definitely looked more alien than human."</i></b>
We read the book from Sherman's point of view.
And through him, we find out everything. His thoughts, his choices, his fears and his dreams. Not only do we get to know him, but we also get to watch his character grow as we move throughout the book.
<b><i>"Sherman, when you get older, you'll come to appreciate that life is basically a series of disappointments."</i></b>
Even though alien, this high school puts Sherman through all the troubles a normal school does: making friends, being bullied and having a crush. But Sherman also gets to fly rockets and has a chance to save the world!
Sherman's sister and his group of friends are awesome! They are funny and smart. I loved Octo, especially for his bravery and selflessness. I also loved the fact that the female characters were presented as strong and powerful individuals. It was a tiny touch, but quite meaningful, and it shouldn't go unnoticed.
<b><i>"Now don't be fooled. Jess might look like a malnourished goth queen, but she punches like a heavyweight."</i></b>
I also liked NED as a character.
<b><i>"I'd call him a bully, but that's giving bullies a bad name."</i></b>
He was quite a big bully - that is true. However, being evil is the only think he learned from his parents while growing up. The lesson we can learn is that sometimes we do bad things because we don't know any different. But what we do once we are given a second chance is what really matters!
I absolutely loved this book and I recommend it not only to middle-graders, but to people of all ages. It's a gem and it deserves to be n every child's library.
I received a copy of this book through a giveaway on Toppsta. All opinions are my own and completely unbiased.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-31.png"/>;
Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake by Jeff Norton was the perfect middle grade quarantine book I was waiting for! Also - during the quarantine, Jeff is reading a chapter a day on his YouTube Channel, so please do check it out. His reading is wonderful!
From the first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I was going to like this book.
Fourteen-year-old Sherman is used to moving schools. But he's never been to a school like Groom Lake High, the high school for aliens.
It's a very alien environment for him, and he has to fit in. He quickly makes friends with a gang of galactic misfits. When the school bully NED endangers planet Earth, Sherman and his friends have to do anything they can to stop him!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
The thing I loved most about Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake was the amazing word play and inside jokes. It is very well thought and written and I really enjoyed it! There were so many puns and witty jokes that a children might initially miss, but will definitely make an adult chuckle.
<b><i>"It suddenly struck me that Facebook might be one of the alien inventions we were all using. I had seen its inventor on TV once and he definitely looked more alien than human."</i></b>
We read the book from Sherman's point of view.
And through him, we find out everything. His thoughts, his choices, his fears and his dreams. Not only do we get to know him, but we also get to watch his character grow as we move throughout the book.
<b><i>"Sherman, when you get older, you'll come to appreciate that life is basically a series of disappointments."</i></b>
Even though alien, this high school puts Sherman through all the troubles a normal school does: making friends, being bullied and having a crush. But Sherman also gets to fly rockets and has a chance to save the world!
Sherman's sister and his group of friends are awesome! They are funny and smart. I loved Octo, especially for his bravery and selflessness. I also loved the fact that the female characters were presented as strong and powerful individuals. It was a tiny touch, but quite meaningful, and it shouldn't go unnoticed.
<b><i>"Now don't be fooled. Jess might look like a malnourished goth queen, but she punches like a heavyweight."</i></b>
I also liked NED as a character.
<b><i>"I'd call him a bully, but that's giving bullies a bad name."</i></b>
He was quite a big bully - that is true. However, being evil is the only think he learned from his parents while growing up. The lesson we can learn is that sometimes we do bad things because we don't know any different. But what we do once we are given a second chance is what really matters!
I absolutely loved this book and I recommend it not only to middle-graders, but to people of all ages. It's a gem and it deserves to be n every child's library.
I received a copy of this book through a giveaway on Toppsta. All opinions are my own and completely unbiased.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Jul 8, 2022
Good Character Arcs for Thor and Jane
Under the Writing and Direction of Taika Waititi, the THOR franchise portion of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has gone in a more comedic, rather than Shakespearean, direction and THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER proves that this direction is a smart one both for THOR and for the overall health and diversity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as well.
Starring Chris Hemsworth, of course, as the titular THOR, Love and Thunder shows our demi-god hero at a crossroads in his life and career. Into this world walks his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and chaos ensues as both are chasing the god-killer, Gorr (Christian Bale).
This sort of premise set-up (and the fact that Hemsworth is playing THOR for the 8th time), could have fallen victim to banality and dullness, but under the watchful eye of Waititi (Writer/Director of the severely under-rated JOJO RABBIT), this THOR soars with the best of them and develops the overall arc and (eventual) pay-off of both Thor’s and Jane’s arcs precisely and (upon retrospection) in the only satisfying way that they could have ended. So, kudos needs to be given to Waititi for walking this tightrope and sticking the landing.
Hemsworth, of course, is charming and buff as Thor and balances the action, romantic drama and comedic portions of this story well. Waititi brings more than just comic relief (though he has plenty of that as well) as the voice of Thor’s buddy KORG, while Christian Bale is more than just one-dimensional (how can this actor be anything but interesting) as the main villain of this piece..
What surprised me the most in this film is the portrayal of Jane Foster by Portman and how her character becomes the “female Thor” (that’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and does NOT become just “Thor’s girlfriend”. Portman has made no secret of her distaste of how her character became the femme fatale in THOR: THE DARK WORLD and refused to return to this character previously. Obviously, Waititi has been able to come up with a storyline - and an arc - that would interest an actress like Portman to return and Natalie nails it. She looked bright-eyed and energized by this part and by where her character goes in this film.
And then there is Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie. This character is a strong part of Thor’s story - and the story of the survivors of Asgaard (their destroyed homeworld). Thompson owns this part and is engaging and interesting to watch on-screen. Out of necessity, her character and story play a supporting role to the main Thor/Jane story, so her character didn’t get quite enough to do for my tastes. But it did whet my appetite for a stand-alone Valkyrie film (make that happen Marvel).
There are cameos and extended-cameos galore in this film - as well as TWO end credits scenes - so to mention them would be to spoil them, except to say that the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY play a pivotal role, but for those who came to see a GUARDIANS film, you’ll have to wait for GUARDIANS 3 to come out next year - this is a THOR film.
A very satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and while not a perfect film (it does try too hard, at times, to mine the same, surprise comic gold of THOR: RAGNAROK), THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER delivers a stand-alone Thor story that drives both the characters of Thor and Jane forward in a smart, intelligent way…and when is the last time the words “smart and intelligent” were used with a comic book film)?
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Chris Hemsworth, of course, as the titular THOR, Love and Thunder shows our demi-god hero at a crossroads in his life and career. Into this world walks his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and chaos ensues as both are chasing the god-killer, Gorr (Christian Bale).
This sort of premise set-up (and the fact that Hemsworth is playing THOR for the 8th time), could have fallen victim to banality and dullness, but under the watchful eye of Waititi (Writer/Director of the severely under-rated JOJO RABBIT), this THOR soars with the best of them and develops the overall arc and (eventual) pay-off of both Thor’s and Jane’s arcs precisely and (upon retrospection) in the only satisfying way that they could have ended. So, kudos needs to be given to Waititi for walking this tightrope and sticking the landing.
Hemsworth, of course, is charming and buff as Thor and balances the action, romantic drama and comedic portions of this story well. Waititi brings more than just comic relief (though he has plenty of that as well) as the voice of Thor’s buddy KORG, while Christian Bale is more than just one-dimensional (how can this actor be anything but interesting) as the main villain of this piece..
What surprised me the most in this film is the portrayal of Jane Foster by Portman and how her character becomes the “female Thor” (that’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and does NOT become just “Thor’s girlfriend”. Portman has made no secret of her distaste of how her character became the femme fatale in THOR: THE DARK WORLD and refused to return to this character previously. Obviously, Waititi has been able to come up with a storyline - and an arc - that would interest an actress like Portman to return and Natalie nails it. She looked bright-eyed and energized by this part and by where her character goes in this film.
And then there is Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie. This character is a strong part of Thor’s story - and the story of the survivors of Asgaard (their destroyed homeworld). Thompson owns this part and is engaging and interesting to watch on-screen. Out of necessity, her character and story play a supporting role to the main Thor/Jane story, so her character didn’t get quite enough to do for my tastes. But it did whet my appetite for a stand-alone Valkyrie film (make that happen Marvel).
There are cameos and extended-cameos galore in this film - as well as TWO end credits scenes - so to mention them would be to spoil them, except to say that the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY play a pivotal role, but for those who came to see a GUARDIANS film, you’ll have to wait for GUARDIANS 3 to come out next year - this is a THOR film.
A very satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and while not a perfect film (it does try too hard, at times, to mine the same, surprise comic gold of THOR: RAGNAROK), THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER delivers a stand-alone Thor story that drives both the characters of Thor and Jane forward in a smart, intelligent way…and when is the last time the words “smart and intelligent” were used with a comic book film)?
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
ClareR (5721 KP) Aug 25, 2018