Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Quentin Tarantino is known for his lengthy, self-indulgent movies - some of which I've loved, some not so much. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a nostalgic homage to 1960s Hollywood and, at 2 hours 41 minutes, it is certainly lengthy and self-indulgent. But, despite some outstanding performances, it's probably at least an hour too long, and proved to be a real test of my patience and endurance.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
Power Girls Super City – Superhero House & Monster Rescue
Games and Education
App
- NEW Power Girls’ adventures inside: Ice Monster and superhero makeup! - To the rescue: help the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Butterfly Effect (2004) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Deeper than it first appears...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Having always being a fan of Time Travel and Science Fiction, I was always keen on seeing this film upon its initial release, seven years ago, now. But for one reason or another, this just didn't happen, leaving me to watch this on TV a couple of years later.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated The Conjuring (2013) in Movies
May 13, 2019
The Conjuring Review
Contains spoilers, click to show
Originally wrote in 2013:
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated The Mortal Instruments 1: City of Bones in Books
Jan 27, 2018
Characters (2 more)
Diversity
Plot Twists
Some of those Plot Twists (1 more)
Overdone & Prolonged
Another I Wanted to Like
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is more of a overall review for the series, well, up to book 4 as I gave up on trying to get through it all at that point because by then I was tired of the senseless drama.
I wanted to like this series because my friend at the time liked it on top of it sounded interesting. By then the movie was out for it and rumors of the TV show was circling around in the Tumblr community. So, between her and the rest of Booklr I thought why not give it a shot? It couldn't be that bad. Oh how I was wrong.
I shocked a series like this has gained such popularity when really it's good at most. It's not amazing. It's not stunning. It's not special. It's an okay book, with an okay plot, and your basic set of characters.
A girl is average at best, her best friend loves her, and she's being thrown into a world where she's "the one". Oh, did I mention there is a perfect, hot guy with his pals who appear to both be jealous of her? AND THERE'S MORE! The totally hot guy is falling for her...... but they're brother and sister. Oh and they are okay with hooking up despite that. Sort of. It's major conflict. Until you learn they are related and her father was simply messing with them to cause problems in the hopes it would help him have both of them on his side.
As much as Clare offers different types of paranormal things it's all overdone and overplayed. Many times the moments that are suppose to change the whole game in the series are dragged out to the point you're bored to death. Sure, there are gay characters, but they feel more like a "come look at me I'm for your rights even though I'm using your suffering as a way to promote my books as me accepting you" rather than the characters written as simply real. Most of the time that's how secondary characters feel in the series as they are there to be there but not actually meant to be there. Yes, let that idea settle for a second.
I felt like many if Clare had a better team of people proof reading her drafts, pointed out some of these things were not okay (Incest for one), and had people guide her to make the characters more real this could have been a better set of books to me. Maybe it is me still wanting to like it. I'm not sure honestly. I just wish for such a popular series it was worthy of it for everyone.
I wanted to like this series because my friend at the time liked it on top of it sounded interesting. By then the movie was out for it and rumors of the TV show was circling around in the Tumblr community. So, between her and the rest of Booklr I thought why not give it a shot? It couldn't be that bad. Oh how I was wrong.
I shocked a series like this has gained such popularity when really it's good at most. It's not amazing. It's not stunning. It's not special. It's an okay book, with an okay plot, and your basic set of characters.
A girl is average at best, her best friend loves her, and she's being thrown into a world where she's "the one". Oh, did I mention there is a perfect, hot guy with his pals who appear to both be jealous of her? AND THERE'S MORE! The totally hot guy is falling for her...... but they're brother and sister. Oh and they are okay with hooking up despite that. Sort of. It's major conflict. Until you learn they are related and her father was simply messing with them to cause problems in the hopes it would help him have both of them on his side.
As much as Clare offers different types of paranormal things it's all overdone and overplayed. Many times the moments that are suppose to change the whole game in the series are dragged out to the point you're bored to death. Sure, there are gay characters, but they feel more like a "come look at me I'm for your rights even though I'm using your suffering as a way to promote my books as me accepting you" rather than the characters written as simply real. Most of the time that's how secondary characters feel in the series as they are there to be there but not actually meant to be there. Yes, let that idea settle for a second.
I felt like many if Clare had a better team of people proof reading her drafts, pointed out some of these things were not okay (Incest for one), and had people guide her to make the characters more real this could have been a better set of books to me. Maybe it is me still wanting to like it. I'm not sure honestly. I just wish for such a popular series it was worthy of it for everyone.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
A fun, family friendly action comedy
JUMANJI was a fun film from the middle 1990's, starring the late, great ROBIN WILLIAMS. And, when I heard that they were making a sequel to this film 22 years later and starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, I thought "no thanks" and even skipped seeking it out at movie theaters over the winter, even after I heard that it was "pretty fun".
I finally caught up to it on a recent flight and I have to admit - I was wrong for skipping this film JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE is a fun romp with The Rock ably filling the lead role, aided by a strong supporting cast.
JUMANJI was about a board came come to life. JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE has the same board game that morphs itself into a video game and when 4 High Schoolers stumble across it while serving detention, well...comedy - and adventure - ensue.
The four high schoolers are typical THE BREAKFAST CLUB stereotypes. The nerdy boy, the hot girl, the jock boy and the dorky girl. When these four are transported into the game they take on the outward appearance - and skills - of their video game characters - the nerdy body becomes the dashing hero (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). The hot girl becomes the dumpy (male!) professor (Jack Black). The jock becomes the un-athletic short kid (Kevin Hart) and the dorky girl becomes the kick-ass girl (Karen Gillan). It is the 4 actors playing their high school counterparts in their bodies that is the core of this film - and the center of the charm and fun of this film. All 4 shine. Johnson and Hart (back together after CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE) show that the chemistry they showed with each other in the previous film is no fluke. Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) shows that she can do kick-ass well - and with a wink in her eye. But it is the performance of Black that steals things. Someone said to me that Black was made to play a "hot high school girl" and I would have to agree. He almost steals the movie.
Director Jake Kasdan (the TV series NEW GIRL) understands what kind of film that he is making, so keeps the fun and action going at a superficial, almost cartoon level, never really stopping to breathe (or to think). He keeps things light - and family friendly - with just enough "almost" dirty jokes to keep young and old alike interested. It earns - but never crosses the line - of it's PG-13 rating. There is talk of a sequel, and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis
I finally caught up to it on a recent flight and I have to admit - I was wrong for skipping this film JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE is a fun romp with The Rock ably filling the lead role, aided by a strong supporting cast.
JUMANJI was about a board came come to life. JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE has the same board game that morphs itself into a video game and when 4 High Schoolers stumble across it while serving detention, well...comedy - and adventure - ensue.
The four high schoolers are typical THE BREAKFAST CLUB stereotypes. The nerdy boy, the hot girl, the jock boy and the dorky girl. When these four are transported into the game they take on the outward appearance - and skills - of their video game characters - the nerdy body becomes the dashing hero (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). The hot girl becomes the dumpy (male!) professor (Jack Black). The jock becomes the un-athletic short kid (Kevin Hart) and the dorky girl becomes the kick-ass girl (Karen Gillan). It is the 4 actors playing their high school counterparts in their bodies that is the core of this film - and the center of the charm and fun of this film. All 4 shine. Johnson and Hart (back together after CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE) show that the chemistry they showed with each other in the previous film is no fluke. Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) shows that she can do kick-ass well - and with a wink in her eye. But it is the performance of Black that steals things. Someone said to me that Black was made to play a "hot high school girl" and I would have to agree. He almost steals the movie.
Director Jake Kasdan (the TV series NEW GIRL) understands what kind of film that he is making, so keeps the fun and action going at a superficial, almost cartoon level, never really stopping to breathe (or to think). He keeps things light - and family friendly - with just enough "almost" dirty jokes to keep young and old alike interested. It earns - but never crosses the line - of it's PG-13 rating. There is talk of a sequel, and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Post Mortem, Parish Mail #2 in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Having reviewed <a href="http://www.a-worldofwords.com/2013/04/my-first-to-review.html">Dead Letter Office</a>, the first of the Parish Mail series, I was contacted by Coliloquy to honestly review [a:Kira Snyder|5447353|Kira Snyder|http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1340947439p2/5447353.jpg]'s second book, [b:Post Mortem|13644678|Post mortem|Peter Terrin|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1336726944s/13644678.jpg|19261112]. I am so glad - I loved the last book, and if anything, this one was even better.
At the end of [b:Dead Letter Office|13415915|Dead Letter Office|Kira Snyder|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1326785157s/13415915.jpg|18726299], the reader is told about a pile of letters that Celia has, in which she is being asked for help. This book is based a couple of weeks after the first, and follows the events of a letter from Celia's pile. Again, she has the help of best friend Tilly as well as Luc and/or Donovan.
The reason I said this book may have been a little better than the first is that it gets stuck straight into the adventure, without needing an introduction to the characters. The characters are established, and there's no pussy-footing around, wondering if someone will get weird with the level of magic involved. That was still great in book 1, don't get me wrong, but there was an instant hook in this story that I loved.
Talking about magic I think the way that magic is so effortlessly intertwined with normal life is really cool. Within a paragraph, Tilly can be whipping up some magical concoction and at the same time dig at Celia for gossip about Luc/Donovan/insert teen issue here. <spoiler>I have a thing for realism, so while in a different book I might have an issue with the protagonist leaving a big dance to go adventuring, in this book it seemed perfectly normal.</spoiler>
Snyder has created characters that will develop upon every sequel, and I think the series would actually make a brilliant TV show - I'd definitely watch it! As with last time, I enjoyed the choices I could make, although they seemed to have a further reach in this book, which meant I had to think more about what I chose. There's one towards the end that took me longer than it should have to decide, as it dramatically affects the climax of the book. There's only one thing slightly negative I'd say about the whole book, and that is that sometimes things were mentioned that only happened in one of the choices in the last book. For readers that, unlike me, didn't read all scenarios, that could have been an issue.
In brief (after a long review - oops!), a highly recommended book, and I can't wait for #3!
At the end of [b:Dead Letter Office|13415915|Dead Letter Office|Kira Snyder|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1326785157s/13415915.jpg|18726299], the reader is told about a pile of letters that Celia has, in which she is being asked for help. This book is based a couple of weeks after the first, and follows the events of a letter from Celia's pile. Again, she has the help of best friend Tilly as well as Luc and/or Donovan.
The reason I said this book may have been a little better than the first is that it gets stuck straight into the adventure, without needing an introduction to the characters. The characters are established, and there's no pussy-footing around, wondering if someone will get weird with the level of magic involved. That was still great in book 1, don't get me wrong, but there was an instant hook in this story that I loved.
Talking about magic I think the way that magic is so effortlessly intertwined with normal life is really cool. Within a paragraph, Tilly can be whipping up some magical concoction and at the same time dig at Celia for gossip about Luc/Donovan/insert teen issue here. <spoiler>I have a thing for realism, so while in a different book I might have an issue with the protagonist leaving a big dance to go adventuring, in this book it seemed perfectly normal.</spoiler>
Snyder has created characters that will develop upon every sequel, and I think the series would actually make a brilliant TV show - I'd definitely watch it! As with last time, I enjoyed the choices I could make, although they seemed to have a further reach in this book, which meant I had to think more about what I chose. There's one towards the end that took me longer than it should have to decide, as it dramatically affects the climax of the book. There's only one thing slightly negative I'd say about the whole book, and that is that sometimes things were mentioned that only happened in one of the choices in the last book. For readers that, unlike me, didn't read all scenarios, that could have been an issue.
In brief (after a long review - oops!), a highly recommended book, and I can't wait for #3!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Destroyer (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
It feels like Nicole Kidman has been making a big screen comeback recently. I enjoyed Aquaman and The Upside, we're also looking forward to seeing her in Boy Erased next month. I was aware that this one was going to be a little... different shall we say? But I hadn't read up much about it. It's a very surprising role to see her in.
Days after seeing Destroyer I'm still not any clearer about the whole thing. It almost felt like it had gritty TV crime drama potential but as a film I was a little underwhelmed.
I spent a long time wondering if I had missed something, the ending caused me the following reaction... "wait... oh... huh." I'm not sure that the way it tied itself up worked. It left me a little confused, not because the story didn't make sense but because of the way the film had been organised.
The main character, Erin, takes some pretty extreme measures during the film because of our bad guy. But out bad guy doesn't seem to warrant that behaviour. Sure he's a little nuts but as a catalyst for the messed up things she does I didn't find it to be very believable.
Kidman puts on a good show as you'd expect, trying to get past that hair and make-up though... I spent the first 30 minutes getting annoyed by it. I honestly don't know if I'm annoyed because it's bad or annoyed because it feels like they've disfigured Nicole Kidman.
The story is very familiar, a cop's past comes back to haunt them isn't new territory. Kidman takes on a very strong role and I can't deny she put some oomph into it but it's just another sort of okay film. Some less dramatic hair and make-up, a more organised timeline and a little more thought for the bad guy and I think I could have seen myself giving this four stars.
[As an after thought... the guy behind me at the screening kept laughing. Proper comedy gaffawing. I have to guess he was laughing at the violence being over the top because there wasn't anything amusing in it. I've seem films that are worse in that aspect though so I'm really just shrugging my shoulders about it.]
What you should do
There are other films that do much the same as this, but seeing Nicole Kidman as Erin Bell was an eye opener that you might benefit from seeing once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like whatever Nicole Kidman has that makes her naturally look like she's no older that Sebastian Stan.
Days after seeing Destroyer I'm still not any clearer about the whole thing. It almost felt like it had gritty TV crime drama potential but as a film I was a little underwhelmed.
I spent a long time wondering if I had missed something, the ending caused me the following reaction... "wait... oh... huh." I'm not sure that the way it tied itself up worked. It left me a little confused, not because the story didn't make sense but because of the way the film had been organised.
The main character, Erin, takes some pretty extreme measures during the film because of our bad guy. But out bad guy doesn't seem to warrant that behaviour. Sure he's a little nuts but as a catalyst for the messed up things she does I didn't find it to be very believable.
Kidman puts on a good show as you'd expect, trying to get past that hair and make-up though... I spent the first 30 minutes getting annoyed by it. I honestly don't know if I'm annoyed because it's bad or annoyed because it feels like they've disfigured Nicole Kidman.
The story is very familiar, a cop's past comes back to haunt them isn't new territory. Kidman takes on a very strong role and I can't deny she put some oomph into it but it's just another sort of okay film. Some less dramatic hair and make-up, a more organised timeline and a little more thought for the bad guy and I think I could have seen myself giving this four stars.
[As an after thought... the guy behind me at the screening kept laughing. Proper comedy gaffawing. I have to guess he was laughing at the violence being over the top because there wasn't anything amusing in it. I've seem films that are worse in that aspect though so I'm really just shrugging my shoulders about it.]
What you should do
There are other films that do much the same as this, but seeing Nicole Kidman as Erin Bell was an eye opener that you might benefit from seeing once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like whatever Nicole Kidman has that makes her naturally look like she's no older that Sebastian Stan.
DoveConviene
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
On Shopfully, you’ll find deals at Walmart, Target, Kmart, Dollar Tree, Bed Bath &Beyond, Big...