Search
Search results
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Making Waves (League of 7, #1) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
As a first erotic novel, I believe this was a great choice. I bought this book years ago when I was still young and terrified about my parents finding out. I was just a freshman in high school looking for something that normal romance novels couldnt give me. I was so tired of all the sugary innuendoes. If I am going to read about people having sex, I want clear descriptions about what is going on or nothing at all. Innuendoes that compare a ladys part to food just grosses me out; and comparing an orgasm to an explosion of stars is just silly. Of course, I thought all this before I lost my
virginity at the ripe old age of 19 (yay for beating teen pregnancy?) And, I still think this today.
But I digress. This book is actually an anthology of two stories by different authors, both stories water related. Thus, the title.
The first story is titled Liquid Dreams by Cathryn Fox. From the very first page, Fox jumps right into the sex. When I first read it, I felt so scandalous that I knew my cheeks were red from embarrassment. Now, looking back, I realize how silly I was considering I have read much more graphic scenes since. Liquid Dreams does not want of sex scene. In fact, I am pretty sure that 85% of the novel is about the main characters partaking in foreplay. Another 10% is devoted to sex.
The plot consists of a young woman, Katrina, who keeps having dreams about a man that comes to her out of the sea. He pleases her, she pleases him. And then, by swallowing his semen, she starts regaining memories from a past life. Eventually, she figures out that the man, Ranek, is her lover from that. She also gradually realizes that she has been horribly miserable with her life because it is not her true life. The only problem is Raneks brother is hell-bent on seeing them both suffer.
A pretty straight forward plot with no twists or surprises and plenty of steamy sex scenes to call it erotic. The only problem I had with this novel was the way she covered her memories. Everything else was pretty believable for a fantasy erotic novel except that. In fact, it was pretty weird.
The second novel is called Dolphins Playground by Jaci Burton. At first, I was a little hesitant to read it just because of the title, but I sucked it up and read on. Unlike Fox, Burton is more about the plot-line than sex. This short story is about a marine biologist, Jasmine, who would rather spend her time with dolphins than people, especially her big wig boss who cares more about than living things. When she finds some sick dolphins, she decides to take them in much to the chagrin of her soon to be lover, Triton. Triton just so happens to be able to turn into a dolphin and is able to communicate with them. In fact, the dolphins that are now in Jasmines custody actually belong to Triton, who is also trying to find a cure with the diseased dolphins.
Since he cant get the dolphins out of the facility, Triton decides to use it, and Jasmine, to his advantage in his search for the cure. They, of course, hook up during this search and do end up having a happy ending.
The writing was pretty simple in terms of vocabulary and biology terms. However, I really enjoyed Triton and Jasmines witty banter and that the you could cut the sexual tension between them with a knife. It was the characters that made this story, honestly.
virginity at the ripe old age of 19 (yay for beating teen pregnancy?) And, I still think this today.
But I digress. This book is actually an anthology of two stories by different authors, both stories water related. Thus, the title.
The first story is titled Liquid Dreams by Cathryn Fox. From the very first page, Fox jumps right into the sex. When I first read it, I felt so scandalous that I knew my cheeks were red from embarrassment. Now, looking back, I realize how silly I was considering I have read much more graphic scenes since. Liquid Dreams does not want of sex scene. In fact, I am pretty sure that 85% of the novel is about the main characters partaking in foreplay. Another 10% is devoted to sex.
The plot consists of a young woman, Katrina, who keeps having dreams about a man that comes to her out of the sea. He pleases her, she pleases him. And then, by swallowing his semen, she starts regaining memories from a past life. Eventually, she figures out that the man, Ranek, is her lover from that. She also gradually realizes that she has been horribly miserable with her life because it is not her true life. The only problem is Raneks brother is hell-bent on seeing them both suffer.
A pretty straight forward plot with no twists or surprises and plenty of steamy sex scenes to call it erotic. The only problem I had with this novel was the way she covered her memories. Everything else was pretty believable for a fantasy erotic novel except that. In fact, it was pretty weird.
The second novel is called Dolphins Playground by Jaci Burton. At first, I was a little hesitant to read it just because of the title, but I sucked it up and read on. Unlike Fox, Burton is more about the plot-line than sex. This short story is about a marine biologist, Jasmine, who would rather spend her time with dolphins than people, especially her big wig boss who cares more about than living things. When she finds some sick dolphins, she decides to take them in much to the chagrin of her soon to be lover, Triton. Triton just so happens to be able to turn into a dolphin and is able to communicate with them. In fact, the dolphins that are now in Jasmines custody actually belong to Triton, who is also trying to find a cure with the diseased dolphins.
Since he cant get the dolphins out of the facility, Triton decides to use it, and Jasmine, to his advantage in his search for the cure. They, of course, hook up during this search and do end up having a happy ending.
The writing was pretty simple in terms of vocabulary and biology terms. However, I really enjoyed Triton and Jasmines witty banter and that the you could cut the sexual tension between them with a knife. It was the characters that made this story, honestly.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Losing Francesca in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
How interesting does this book sound!?! The blurb definitely caught my attention, and I'm glad it did because I loved this book!!
I think the title suits this book. It's about the main character losing who she thought she was, so I think it suits the book just fine.
I'm usually not a big fan of just sticking a girl on the cover of a book, but with Losing Francesca, it works. I think if it had much more than Francesca on the cover, it'd be too cluttered.
I found the world building to written quite well for the most part! It was easy to slip into Francesca's shoes and feel exactly what she was feeling. The only part I didn't like was the insta-love between Francesca and Brody. It just didn't feel that believable. Also, I felt as if Francesca accepted her new life too quickly. She didn't act nervous or scared enough, I felt. However, saying that, I've never been in that situation, so I can't pass judgement too much.
The pacing is absolutely fantastic in this book! I usually only read ebooks at night while I'm laying down, but with Losing Francesca, I was reading this book at all times. I couldn't wait to read about what would happen next. This book definitely held my attention.
I really enjoyed the whole plot. I found it to be original and interesting. I like the idea of a girl that was kidnapped being recognized as the child who went missing years ago. I wanted to see what it'd be like. There aren't really any plot twists in this book, but that doesn't take away from how good it is.
I didn't really like the character of Francesca until towards the end. She came across as being a snobby rich girl. Even when she was with Brody and had stopped with the whole rich girl act, she still seemed like she was bragging about how rich her family is. To me, she was too spoiled and too much of a show-off. However, I did start liking her towards the end. I did like Brody. I loved his determination and his never give up attitude. Although he used to be a bit of a bad boy, he came across as a gentleman.
The thing that annoyed me with the dialogue is that the swearing seemed too over the top. Brody swears a lot, and most of the time, the swearing seems forced and fake. It doesn't come across as natural because Brody does it too much. And it wasn't just Brody. Some of the other teenagers swore as well, and it didn't come across as natural. Other than the unnatural swearing, the dialogue was quite enjoyable. We get point of views from Francesca and Brody which was quite enjoyable to read. I enjoyed reading Francesca's point of view the best.
Overall, Losing Francesca by J.A. Huss was a super good read! There were a few problems, but those were easy to overlook with how great the book was!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 17+ who are after an interesting and sweet read. I'm only recommending it from age 17+ due to the language (which there is a lot of swearing). Otherwise, this would've been a 14+.
I'd give Losing Francesca by J.A. Huss a 4.5 out of 5.
(I received a free ecopy of this title from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
How interesting does this book sound!?! The blurb definitely caught my attention, and I'm glad it did because I loved this book!!
I think the title suits this book. It's about the main character losing who she thought she was, so I think it suits the book just fine.
I'm usually not a big fan of just sticking a girl on the cover of a book, but with Losing Francesca, it works. I think if it had much more than Francesca on the cover, it'd be too cluttered.
I found the world building to written quite well for the most part! It was easy to slip into Francesca's shoes and feel exactly what she was feeling. The only part I didn't like was the insta-love between Francesca and Brody. It just didn't feel that believable. Also, I felt as if Francesca accepted her new life too quickly. She didn't act nervous or scared enough, I felt. However, saying that, I've never been in that situation, so I can't pass judgement too much.
The pacing is absolutely fantastic in this book! I usually only read ebooks at night while I'm laying down, but with Losing Francesca, I was reading this book at all times. I couldn't wait to read about what would happen next. This book definitely held my attention.
I really enjoyed the whole plot. I found it to be original and interesting. I like the idea of a girl that was kidnapped being recognized as the child who went missing years ago. I wanted to see what it'd be like. There aren't really any plot twists in this book, but that doesn't take away from how good it is.
I didn't really like the character of Francesca until towards the end. She came across as being a snobby rich girl. Even when she was with Brody and had stopped with the whole rich girl act, she still seemed like she was bragging about how rich her family is. To me, she was too spoiled and too much of a show-off. However, I did start liking her towards the end. I did like Brody. I loved his determination and his never give up attitude. Although he used to be a bit of a bad boy, he came across as a gentleman.
The thing that annoyed me with the dialogue is that the swearing seemed too over the top. Brody swears a lot, and most of the time, the swearing seems forced and fake. It doesn't come across as natural because Brody does it too much. And it wasn't just Brody. Some of the other teenagers swore as well, and it didn't come across as natural. Other than the unnatural swearing, the dialogue was quite enjoyable. We get point of views from Francesca and Brody which was quite enjoyable to read. I enjoyed reading Francesca's point of view the best.
Overall, Losing Francesca by J.A. Huss was a super good read! There were a few problems, but those were easy to overlook with how great the book was!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 17+ who are after an interesting and sweet read. I'm only recommending it from age 17+ due to the language (which there is a lot of swearing). Otherwise, this would've been a 14+.
I'd give Losing Francesca by J.A. Huss a 4.5 out of 5.
(I received a free ecopy of this title from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Not as bad as I was expecting
I have to admit, when I first saw the trailer for Shazam!, I felt pretty underwhelmed. It didn’t seem like the kind of film I’d enjoy. I often get tired of cringey, over the top humour, which is basically what the trailer was packed full of. Having said all of this, I ended up being pleasantly surprised by the film after agreeing to go to a Limitless screening. I actually don’t think the trailer did it justice, if I’m perfectly honest.
The plot of Shazam! is completely bonkers, but let’s face it, what did you expect from a superhero film? Most origin stories are implausible, but that’s the beauty of the genre for me. The film follows 14-year-old Billy Batson, after he is gifted superpowers by a wizard and is able to transform into the adult ‘Shazam’ simply by shouting his name. At first, it is a little weird seeing him transform from a kid into an adult and back again, but you do get used to it. I loved the performances by Zachary Levi and Asher Angel throughout, and they did a great job of mirroring each other.
The film’s antagonist Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong) gets his powers from the seven deadly sins; a group of terrifying, demonic spirits who lead him down a dark path. He’s full of anger, and wants to lash out at the world and the family who berated him his entire life. As far as antagonists go, he’s fairly standard, but fun to watch. He’s nothing revolutionary, but I enjoyed watching him fight Shazam at least. When Sivana is on screen, the film does take a much darker turn, so I would add a viewer discretion for any young children out there. I was even caught out by a pretty effective jump scare at one point.
Annoyingly the pacing is a little off in the third act, and the final fight scene between Sivana and Shazam could’ve easily been trimmed down by 15 minutes or so. I found myself getting a little restless here, which was disappointing given how much fun I had with the rest of the film. Having this sluggish scene follow so many hilarious, genuinely engaging moments was a shame. Don’t let that put you off though, the rest of the film works well. The relationship between Billy and his foster brother Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) is hilarious, and got the most laughs from me. Even when he’s in his adult form, Billy still acts like Billy, so there’s lots of teenage boy bickering throughout as you may expect.
I was also surprised at the emotional themes that run through the film. On the surface, it’s a goofy, laugh out loud superhero film, but it also deals with difficult scenarios. As a foster child, Billy has desperately been searching for his birth mother, and Dr. Sivana has loathed his own family ever since he was a child. Both are struggling with the concept of family, and there are frequent references to this throughout. Billy’s most recent foster family are delightful to watch, and I was impressed by the child actors in the film. They’re definitely the most engaging characters, who would go out of their way to help Billy and their other foster siblings.
Shazam! is not a brilliant film, but it’s also way better than I was expecting. The tone is all over the place, some of the jokes are stupid, and it’s super goofy. But it’s a perfect film to watch for a bit of escapism, if you don’t want to think too hard about what you’re watching. I was surprised at just how much fun I had.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/29/not-as-bad-as-i-was-expecting-my-thoughts-on-shazam/
The plot of Shazam! is completely bonkers, but let’s face it, what did you expect from a superhero film? Most origin stories are implausible, but that’s the beauty of the genre for me. The film follows 14-year-old Billy Batson, after he is gifted superpowers by a wizard and is able to transform into the adult ‘Shazam’ simply by shouting his name. At first, it is a little weird seeing him transform from a kid into an adult and back again, but you do get used to it. I loved the performances by Zachary Levi and Asher Angel throughout, and they did a great job of mirroring each other.
The film’s antagonist Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong) gets his powers from the seven deadly sins; a group of terrifying, demonic spirits who lead him down a dark path. He’s full of anger, and wants to lash out at the world and the family who berated him his entire life. As far as antagonists go, he’s fairly standard, but fun to watch. He’s nothing revolutionary, but I enjoyed watching him fight Shazam at least. When Sivana is on screen, the film does take a much darker turn, so I would add a viewer discretion for any young children out there. I was even caught out by a pretty effective jump scare at one point.
Annoyingly the pacing is a little off in the third act, and the final fight scene between Sivana and Shazam could’ve easily been trimmed down by 15 minutes or so. I found myself getting a little restless here, which was disappointing given how much fun I had with the rest of the film. Having this sluggish scene follow so many hilarious, genuinely engaging moments was a shame. Don’t let that put you off though, the rest of the film works well. The relationship between Billy and his foster brother Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) is hilarious, and got the most laughs from me. Even when he’s in his adult form, Billy still acts like Billy, so there’s lots of teenage boy bickering throughout as you may expect.
I was also surprised at the emotional themes that run through the film. On the surface, it’s a goofy, laugh out loud superhero film, but it also deals with difficult scenarios. As a foster child, Billy has desperately been searching for his birth mother, and Dr. Sivana has loathed his own family ever since he was a child. Both are struggling with the concept of family, and there are frequent references to this throughout. Billy’s most recent foster family are delightful to watch, and I was impressed by the child actors in the film. They’re definitely the most engaging characters, who would go out of their way to help Billy and their other foster siblings.
Shazam! is not a brilliant film, but it’s also way better than I was expecting. The tone is all over the place, some of the jokes are stupid, and it’s super goofy. But it’s a perfect film to watch for a bit of escapism, if you don’t want to think too hard about what you’re watching. I was surprised at just how much fun I had.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/29/not-as-bad-as-i-was-expecting-my-thoughts-on-shazam/
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Hummingbird Project (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Contemporary technology drama comes to the silver screen in the form of The Hummingbird Project starring Jesse Eisenberg, Alexander Skarsgård, and Salma Hayek. The film’s premise is realistic enough: A pair of insiders at a big Wall Street company defect to start a project for a rival firm – to built a single fiber optic connection between a stock exchange in Kansas City and the New York Stock Exchange. This was realistic enough that my lack of knowledge on the history of Wall Street’s networking had me looking up later to see if there was any truth or basis to portions of the plot. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find anything referencing a Kansas City Stock Exchange. Unless they were referring to livestock? Because there was a Kansas City Livestock Exchange. Anyway, my biases up front – despite my clear lacking of aforementioned knowledge, I am a tech geek with experience in networking and related technology fields. So, a premise like this has a lot to attract my attention. There is admittedly much to enjoy about dramas regarding our contemporary plights in the realm of technology, because that’s where a lot of work is centered. Gone are the days of building railroads. But our internet infrastructure…
The film does a fairly good job representing the intense difficulty of such a project: it’s something like one thousand miles of straight line to run one fiber optic connection without obstruction. Most people would not think about what goes into making that into reality, which is the draw for most of the film’s conflict. I do however recognize that centering the plot on a large scale construction job of an internet cable doesn’t exactly scream excitement for most people; and this is especially true when the end goal is to shave off one millisecond from their current transaction times. Yet, this arguably ironic dynamic actually ended up being somewhat of a draw for me. Halfway through the film the question arises, “All this for just a millisecond of increased speed?” That’s the point though, and I wish the film would have delved deeper into these kinds of themes. This represents my chief criticism: all of the elements are here for a truly stellar drama but everything is explored at only a shallow or moderate depth. The characters have decent arcs, thrown some difficult challenges and curveballs to overcome, but Jesse Eisenberg’s character only briefly touches on the back-story that truly drives him, and while Alexander Skarsgård‘s character is more fully fleshed out his arc is essentially basic. I do enjoy the role reversal as one would usually expect to see Jesse Eisenberg playing the socially awkward genius programmer and Alexander Skarsgård to play the ambitious go-getter who runs the project, but they take opposite roles to great effect. The actors all do great here for the most part, including the excellent Michael Mando in a supporting role. My only complaint here is the acting dips a bit into melodrama later in the film, but this is mostly attributed to subplots that edge into the unbelievable.
Ironically Hummingbird Project works best at representing its core premise of what most would consider a mundane construction project. The actors do well, and I especially enjoy Alexander Skarsgård‘s portrayal of the lonely genius, but their underlying drama and back-stories are a bit of a mixed bag. Some of it works decently well while other elements do not – particularly late in the film. Sadly the themes at play are a bit too obvious and underexplored, but it is an appreciated attempt to represent a seldom explored aspect of contemporary industry.
The film does a fairly good job representing the intense difficulty of such a project: it’s something like one thousand miles of straight line to run one fiber optic connection without obstruction. Most people would not think about what goes into making that into reality, which is the draw for most of the film’s conflict. I do however recognize that centering the plot on a large scale construction job of an internet cable doesn’t exactly scream excitement for most people; and this is especially true when the end goal is to shave off one millisecond from their current transaction times. Yet, this arguably ironic dynamic actually ended up being somewhat of a draw for me. Halfway through the film the question arises, “All this for just a millisecond of increased speed?” That’s the point though, and I wish the film would have delved deeper into these kinds of themes. This represents my chief criticism: all of the elements are here for a truly stellar drama but everything is explored at only a shallow or moderate depth. The characters have decent arcs, thrown some difficult challenges and curveballs to overcome, but Jesse Eisenberg’s character only briefly touches on the back-story that truly drives him, and while Alexander Skarsgård‘s character is more fully fleshed out his arc is essentially basic. I do enjoy the role reversal as one would usually expect to see Jesse Eisenberg playing the socially awkward genius programmer and Alexander Skarsgård to play the ambitious go-getter who runs the project, but they take opposite roles to great effect. The actors all do great here for the most part, including the excellent Michael Mando in a supporting role. My only complaint here is the acting dips a bit into melodrama later in the film, but this is mostly attributed to subplots that edge into the unbelievable.
Ironically Hummingbird Project works best at representing its core premise of what most would consider a mundane construction project. The actors do well, and I especially enjoy Alexander Skarsgård‘s portrayal of the lonely genius, but their underlying drama and back-stories are a bit of a mixed bag. Some of it works decently well while other elements do not – particularly late in the film. Sadly the themes at play are a bit too obvious and underexplored, but it is an appreciated attempt to represent a seldom explored aspect of contemporary industry.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Final Notice: A Political Thriller in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Final Notice by Van Flesher was a very conflicting book for me. I was excited to read this book after I read over the description but found myself to be extremely disappointed. The concept was good but the way the book was written completely lost my interest. I debated a few different times about putting the book down but felt that I owed it to the author to give the book a chance. That being said, just because I did not like it does not mean that other readers would not find it enjoyable.
A company creates a watch called the VT2 and it can monitor a person's health with surprising accuracy. It also has the capability of giving a person a Final Notice when it detect a change that will ultimately lead to death. At the same time the NRA started offering a discount to senior citizens to buy guns in order to defend themselves in their families. On top of these two events, many states are being pushed to have loser laws that will make it easier for people to get guns. These three factors together line up to create a series of horrible events.
The Final Notice feature was intended to give people a chance to get their affairs in order. However, for some once they get their notice they realize with having nothing to lose they can get revenge on people who have wronged them in the past. Some seniors lash out at others, specifically younger people who insulted them in some way. Other people go after political figures that they do not agree with. People who work for the company that created VT2 even joke about how if they knew they were going to die they had a list of people that they would try to take with them. The company ends up working with the FBI and a journalist to offset the negative impact of the VT2 and market it to the public in a positive light.
Many books did not include specifics about religion but that's one does. I found that to be a nice change as it made some of the characters feel more authentic. It also tackled some hard issues, not just the gun laws but also refugees and immigration focusing on those from Syria. With how anti-gun and anti-NRA this book is I was surprised at how casually other issues are mentioned. I would think topic such as underage drinking, fake IDs, and teen pregnancy would also be shown in a more negative light and not just as a passing memory. There were also a few attempt at humor towards the end of the book that just felt weird, in fact I am not even completely sure if it was supposed to be humor. The author says " the author feel sorry..." and " the author was tempted..." and as these are the only time this writing style is used it feels out of place. Morals are also called into question a three different times over the course of this book. It makes the reader question just because you can make money off of something and it is legal does that automatically make it alright?
The target readers for this book would be adult to our supporters of gun control. High school teachers might find this book interesting to teach with topics for group discussion by the students. Also people who are against the NRA in general would probably find this books topics to be enjoyable. After much the bay I have decided to give this book a 2 out of 4. Originally, I was only going to give the book a 1 but the concept of the watch is too interesting. Many chapters or paragraph felt repetitive of previous statements and I think that was largely what turned me away from this book.
A company creates a watch called the VT2 and it can monitor a person's health with surprising accuracy. It also has the capability of giving a person a Final Notice when it detect a change that will ultimately lead to death. At the same time the NRA started offering a discount to senior citizens to buy guns in order to defend themselves in their families. On top of these two events, many states are being pushed to have loser laws that will make it easier for people to get guns. These three factors together line up to create a series of horrible events.
The Final Notice feature was intended to give people a chance to get their affairs in order. However, for some once they get their notice they realize with having nothing to lose they can get revenge on people who have wronged them in the past. Some seniors lash out at others, specifically younger people who insulted them in some way. Other people go after political figures that they do not agree with. People who work for the company that created VT2 even joke about how if they knew they were going to die they had a list of people that they would try to take with them. The company ends up working with the FBI and a journalist to offset the negative impact of the VT2 and market it to the public in a positive light.
Many books did not include specifics about religion but that's one does. I found that to be a nice change as it made some of the characters feel more authentic. It also tackled some hard issues, not just the gun laws but also refugees and immigration focusing on those from Syria. With how anti-gun and anti-NRA this book is I was surprised at how casually other issues are mentioned. I would think topic such as underage drinking, fake IDs, and teen pregnancy would also be shown in a more negative light and not just as a passing memory. There were also a few attempt at humor towards the end of the book that just felt weird, in fact I am not even completely sure if it was supposed to be humor. The author says " the author feel sorry..." and " the author was tempted..." and as these are the only time this writing style is used it feels out of place. Morals are also called into question a three different times over the course of this book. It makes the reader question just because you can make money off of something and it is legal does that automatically make it alright?
The target readers for this book would be adult to our supporters of gun control. High school teachers might find this book interesting to teach with topics for group discussion by the students. Also people who are against the NRA in general would probably find this books topics to be enjoyable. After much the bay I have decided to give this book a 2 out of 4. Originally, I was only going to give the book a 1 but the concept of the watch is too interesting. Many chapters or paragraph felt repetitive of previous statements and I think that was largely what turned me away from this book.
Ronyell (38 KP) rated Return to Oz (1985) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Dark Side of Oz!
Dorothy Gale had just come back from the Land of Oz, but when she tried to tell her aunt and uncle about her adventures in Oz, they thought that Dorothy had gone crazy, so they decided to take her to a doctor that will give her treatment for her insanity. The treatment turns out to be shock therapy and Dorothy, with a little help from a mysterious girl, escapes from the mental hospital and ended up in the land of Oz once again. But, once Dorothy arrives in Oz, she discovers that the Land of Oz has been taken over by the Nome King and that the Scarecrow, who was the King of Oz, has been kidnapped by the Nome King. So, Dorothy along with some help from a pumpkin man named Jack Pumpkinhead, a mechanical robot named Tik-Tok, her hen Billina and a half moose half sofa creature named the Gump try to journey to the Nome King's kingdom to rescue the Scarecrow, while encountering nightmarish creatures such as Princess Mombi and the Wheelers along the way.
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Peterloo (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Peterloo was a daunting prospect even before getting into the screen. 154 minutes... that's 2 hours and 34 minutes of a very bleak piece of history.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
Voice Answer Lite
Business and Reference
App
Voice Answer gives answers on many topics and can assist you with several tasks, all voice...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Cruise Flying High Again.
If you ask anyone to list the top 10 film actors, chance is that “Tom Cruise” would make many people’s lists. He’s in everything isn’t he? Well, actually, no. Looking at his imdb history, he’s only averaged just over a movie per year for several years. I guess he’s just traditionally made a big impact with the films he’s done. This all rather changed in the last year with his offerings of the rather lacklustre “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” (FFF) and the pretty dreadful “The Mummy” (Ff) as one of this summer’s big blockbuster disappointments. So Thomas Cruise Mapother IV was sorely in need of a upward turn and fortunately “American Made” delivers in spades.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
