Search
Search results
Men's Health Fitness Trainer
Health & Fitness and Sports
App
The Men’s Health Fitness Trainer supports and motivates you to effectively reach your personal...
Period Tracker App - Eve
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
Eve by Glow is a savvy period tracker and sex app for women who want to take control of their health...
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated Unrivaled (Hockey Ever After #3) in Books
Mar 24, 2024 (Updated Mar 24, 2024)
so bloody good!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 3 in the Hockey Ever After series, and I am reading it after I read book 4. They can all read as a stand alone, the characters from previous books do pop up, but you don't need to haveread those to fully enjoy this book.
And I bloody LOVED this book! It is absolutely on a par with book 2, that got 5 stars from me, but for a very different reason. That book was very emotional, heavy on the angst scale. THIS one? Opposite end of the scale, low on the angst. Emotional, still, but different.
Max and Grady has chemistry on the ice, just the sort that the media have billed it as hatred. Grady doesn't hate Max, Max breaking Grady's arm years previously really was an accident. But when a hookup who Max thinks is a catfish usingGrady's picture turns out to be Grady, that attraction goes into overdrive. And from that very first time, both men were hooked. But they play for rival teams, can it really work when one or both could be traded and moved at a moments notice?
I loved this, I really did!
Max and Grady are perfect for each other, each with their quirks and faults that compliment the others and I fell in love with these guys right from the start.
The chemistry is powerful, and plays a huge part all the way through the book. But I found this one was a bit more fade to grey, than full on page smexy times, and I think for THESE two, it was perfect.
The hockey match descriptions, while a lot, I found I enjoyed then more because of the interaction between Max and Grady when they were on ice together. Even when they played other teams, I didn't feel overwhelmed by the technical stuff. I still have no clue how it works, but having been to an ice hockey match here in the UK, I can appreciate the SPEED these matches are played at!
The only real angst, I think, was when Grady got traded. He reacted badly to something someone said, and instead of reaching out to Max, Max bore the brunt of Grady's anger...? No, he wasn't angry, he was HURT. But Grady does redeem himself, quite wonderfully.
I have already read the short that comes after this, and I'm finding it really REALLY hard not to write in here, what happens there. So I will leave this one as this:
5 full and shiny stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This is book 3 in the Hockey Ever After series, and I am reading it after I read book 4. They can all read as a stand alone, the characters from previous books do pop up, but you don't need to haveread those to fully enjoy this book.
And I bloody LOVED this book! It is absolutely on a par with book 2, that got 5 stars from me, but for a very different reason. That book was very emotional, heavy on the angst scale. THIS one? Opposite end of the scale, low on the angst. Emotional, still, but different.
Max and Grady has chemistry on the ice, just the sort that the media have billed it as hatred. Grady doesn't hate Max, Max breaking Grady's arm years previously really was an accident. But when a hookup who Max thinks is a catfish usingGrady's picture turns out to be Grady, that attraction goes into overdrive. And from that very first time, both men were hooked. But they play for rival teams, can it really work when one or both could be traded and moved at a moments notice?
I loved this, I really did!
Max and Grady are perfect for each other, each with their quirks and faults that compliment the others and I fell in love with these guys right from the start.
The chemistry is powerful, and plays a huge part all the way through the book. But I found this one was a bit more fade to grey, than full on page smexy times, and I think for THESE two, it was perfect.
The hockey match descriptions, while a lot, I found I enjoyed then more because of the interaction between Max and Grady when they were on ice together. Even when they played other teams, I didn't feel overwhelmed by the technical stuff. I still have no clue how it works, but having been to an ice hockey match here in the UK, I can appreciate the SPEED these matches are played at!
The only real angst, I think, was when Grady got traded. He reacted badly to something someone said, and instead of reaching out to Max, Max bore the brunt of Grady's anger...? No, he wasn't angry, he was HURT. But Grady does redeem himself, quite wonderfully.
I have already read the short that comes after this, and I'm finding it really REALLY hard not to write in here, what happens there. So I will leave this one as this:
5 full and shiny stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an interesting piece. Originally commissioned for a 30 minute documentary piece, Peter Jackson found so much footage and so many stories to tell that he managed to extend it into a feature length production.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Oct 31, 2017 (Updated Oct 31, 2017)
A stone cold classic at this point (2 more)
Nolan's direction
Fantastic performances all around
The Movie That Comic Book Fans Deserve
Contains spoilers, click to show
Almost 10 years on from the original release of this film, it is still the best superhero film ever made up until this point. While a few movies, such as Logan and Winter Soldier, have came close to the quality of TDK, nothing has surpassed it in the last decade. There is so much to love here, whether it is Nolan's deliberate and effective direction, Hans Zimmer's uplifting yet melancholy score, the beautifully epic cinematography provided by Wally Pfister and of course Heath Ledger's incredible, electrifying performance as the Clown Prince Of Crime.
The movie starts as it means to go on, with an awesome opening sequence introducing the Joker. It plays out like a short film that could even be viewed independently of the rest of the movie and still make complete sense. We see a group of criminals dressed in clown masks robbing a bank and offing each other one by one after they complete their part of the heist. This all builds up to the reveal of the enigmatic Joker, complete with an awesome Cesar Romero reference in the Joker's mask as well. The sequence works so well, because it shows even those who aren't comic book fans or aren't familiar with these characters, exactly what kind of villain we are dealing with.
On the other hand though, there is a lot here for long time fans of Batman comics as well. A good amount of plot elements in the movie were taken from one of my favourite Batman stories ever written: The Long Halloween. Things such as the Harvey Dent working with Jim Gordon and Batman to prevent crime to then go on to show his eventual transformation into the totally unhinged Two-Face. The character design for the characters is also clearly inspired by a comic by Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo, simply titled: Joker. Lastly, the ending of the movie shares similar elements to the ending of The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel, in that they both end with Batman being framed for a murder he didn't commit and having to go into hiding and retire from crime fighting.
Overall, this is a perfect movie in my opinion. It is an astonishing achievement for a comic book movie and it is a great crime epic in its own right as well. The performances across the board are great, with Heath Ledger being the obvious standout and absolutely stealing every single scene that he appears in. The technical elements of the movie are great and it is just a fantastic cinematic experience all around. I first saw the movie in IMAX and that definitely was the premium way to initially experience this movie, but no matter what format you watch it on, its hard to deny that it is a masterpiece.
The movie starts as it means to go on, with an awesome opening sequence introducing the Joker. It plays out like a short film that could even be viewed independently of the rest of the movie and still make complete sense. We see a group of criminals dressed in clown masks robbing a bank and offing each other one by one after they complete their part of the heist. This all builds up to the reveal of the enigmatic Joker, complete with an awesome Cesar Romero reference in the Joker's mask as well. The sequence works so well, because it shows even those who aren't comic book fans or aren't familiar with these characters, exactly what kind of villain we are dealing with.
On the other hand though, there is a lot here for long time fans of Batman comics as well. A good amount of plot elements in the movie were taken from one of my favourite Batman stories ever written: The Long Halloween. Things such as the Harvey Dent working with Jim Gordon and Batman to prevent crime to then go on to show his eventual transformation into the totally unhinged Two-Face. The character design for the characters is also clearly inspired by a comic by Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo, simply titled: Joker. Lastly, the ending of the movie shares similar elements to the ending of The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel, in that they both end with Batman being framed for a murder he didn't commit and having to go into hiding and retire from crime fighting.
Overall, this is a perfect movie in my opinion. It is an astonishing achievement for a comic book movie and it is a great crime epic in its own right as well. The performances across the board are great, with Heath Ledger being the obvious standout and absolutely stealing every single scene that he appears in. The technical elements of the movie are great and it is just a fantastic cinematic experience all around. I first saw the movie in IMAX and that definitely was the premium way to initially experience this movie, but no matter what format you watch it on, its hard to deny that it is a masterpiece.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Long Black Veil in Books
May 16, 2018
Last month, I received my first physical review copy of a book: Long Black Veil by Jennifer Finney Boylan. I heard about the title through a friend of mine and, after I reading its synopsis, I felt excited. Despite the story's label as a thriller, the majority of the story focuses on Judith Carrigan and her secrets. The plot's so-called mystery is a minor detail in this narrative.
I don't do a lot of research before I read a recommended book. For the most part, I look at its genre, the back cover blurb, and its general rating. I don't read other reviews until after I complete the book. By doing this, I avoid pre-conceived notions of a story's characters. With that in mind, there are details of this book I will not discuss. Some of this is due to a desire to keep this spoiler free. Others are not my story to tell. These facts help to define Judith as a character, but they do not exonerate her.
A dark past isn't uncommon. For Judith, there are skeletons in her closet capable of destroying her entire life. She can either sacrifice what she has built and save an innocent man or let things unfold. It is this latter option that she leans toward and, as a result, she strikes me as being nearly as selfish as Flynn's Amy Dunne in Gone Girl. I have mixed feelings about Long Black Veil because of this. Part of me wants to comfort Judith while another part of me wishes to throttle her.
Despite centering around Judith instead of the decades old mystery than haunts her, Boylan excels at creating an intriguing narrative. It's the passion with which she writes Judy that warms my heart to her, that provides me with the ability to feel even a modicum of sympathy for her struggles. Like all of us, Judy has a right to happiness. Boylan pens Judith beautifully as she reaches for that penultimate feeling that eludes many of us.
In stark contrast to my complaint regarding the story centering around Judith, Boylan somehow manages to give readers too many insights into this unraveling mystery. The story beings with six characters. Seven, to be technical. Throughout its pages, we end up with no less than six different perspectives. This makes it a difficult to follow at times, especially in regards to Judith's memories. (Again, this is a detail you will discover by reading the book, so I will not divulge it.)
Boylan succeeds, despite the plethora of perspectives, at keeping the story moving along. The further in you read, the more twists you encounter - some of which threw me off entirely. While this is not one of my favorite titles and likely will not merit a re-read, it was not unpleasant.
I would like to thank Blogging for Books for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
I don't do a lot of research before I read a recommended book. For the most part, I look at its genre, the back cover blurb, and its general rating. I don't read other reviews until after I complete the book. By doing this, I avoid pre-conceived notions of a story's characters. With that in mind, there are details of this book I will not discuss. Some of this is due to a desire to keep this spoiler free. Others are not my story to tell. These facts help to define Judith as a character, but they do not exonerate her.
A dark past isn't uncommon. For Judith, there are skeletons in her closet capable of destroying her entire life. She can either sacrifice what she has built and save an innocent man or let things unfold. It is this latter option that she leans toward and, as a result, she strikes me as being nearly as selfish as Flynn's Amy Dunne in Gone Girl. I have mixed feelings about Long Black Veil because of this. Part of me wants to comfort Judith while another part of me wishes to throttle her.
Despite centering around Judith instead of the decades old mystery than haunts her, Boylan excels at creating an intriguing narrative. It's the passion with which she writes Judy that warms my heart to her, that provides me with the ability to feel even a modicum of sympathy for her struggles. Like all of us, Judy has a right to happiness. Boylan pens Judith beautifully as she reaches for that penultimate feeling that eludes many of us.
In stark contrast to my complaint regarding the story centering around Judith, Boylan somehow manages to give readers too many insights into this unraveling mystery. The story beings with six characters. Seven, to be technical. Throughout its pages, we end up with no less than six different perspectives. This makes it a difficult to follow at times, especially in regards to Judith's memories. (Again, this is a detail you will discover by reading the book, so I will not divulge it.)
Boylan succeeds, despite the plethora of perspectives, at keeping the story moving along. The further in you read, the more twists you encounter - some of which threw me off entirely. While this is not one of my favorite titles and likely will not merit a re-read, it was not unpleasant.
I would like to thank Blogging for Books for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Next Gen (2018) in Movies
Oct 15, 2018 (Updated Oct 15, 2018)
Beautiful Animation (1 more)
John Krasinski
Fantastic Family Movie
We're in the futuristic city of Grainland and robots are everywhere, helping humans with all aspects of life. From robotic teachers and police, right the way down to the smaller, task orientated robots. Friendly robot hairbrushes leap on kids heads and start brushing their messy hair while robot toothbrushes, programmed by mum to ensure their kids regularly brush their teeth, seek out the children who are trying to avoid them. It's all done in good humour, even if in reality it would all be just a little bit creepy. The opening credits introduce us to Mai Su, whose parents split following an argument. As Mai grows up, her mother compensates for her loss by filling her life with servant robots called Q-Bots, making Mai feel neglected and eventually resentful towards all robots. She's a very unhappy teenager, bullied at school for being different.
At the big launch of the next generation of Q-Bots, Mai breaks free from her excited mum and, following a run in with some security robots, finds herself in a hidden lab. There, Dr Rice, who is the technical brains behind the Q-Bots, has been developing a robot of his own: Project 7723 (voiced by John Krasinski). As the curious Mai goes to investigate the robot, security bots catch up with her once more and she has to leave quickly, leaving behind her backpack. Project 7723 picks up the backpack and sets about returning it to its rightful owner at all costs. As 7723 travels along the highway, following the car that is transporting Mai home, we begin to discover just how technologically advanced 7723 is - packing some serious weaponry, which it uses to effectively take out the police robots that are in pursuit. Nothing stands in its way.
The backpack is eventually returned, but Mai is initially disinterested in the robot. That is, until it takes out the annoying robot toothbrush with a laser! The pair form a friendship, and Mai hides 7723 away in her garage at night. Unfortunately though, 7723 sustained damage to his core memory during the earlier chase and each night has to decide which of the memories he made with Mai that day he can delete in order to prevent his storage from reaching critical capacity. As they have fun together and become good friends, this gets harder to do each day, and you just know that eventually this isn't going to end well.
I really enjoyed Next Gen. It's very reminiscent of movies like Big Hero 6 and The Iron Giant and John Krasinski brings 7723 to life brilliantly. The animation is of such a high standard, beautifully detailed, and there are some fantastic action sequences, along with plenty of good humour throughout. And, as suspected, it does manage to pack a real emotional punch at times too. I sat and watched this with my daughter and it really is just a great family movie.
At the big launch of the next generation of Q-Bots, Mai breaks free from her excited mum and, following a run in with some security robots, finds herself in a hidden lab. There, Dr Rice, who is the technical brains behind the Q-Bots, has been developing a robot of his own: Project 7723 (voiced by John Krasinski). As the curious Mai goes to investigate the robot, security bots catch up with her once more and she has to leave quickly, leaving behind her backpack. Project 7723 picks up the backpack and sets about returning it to its rightful owner at all costs. As 7723 travels along the highway, following the car that is transporting Mai home, we begin to discover just how technologically advanced 7723 is - packing some serious weaponry, which it uses to effectively take out the police robots that are in pursuit. Nothing stands in its way.
The backpack is eventually returned, but Mai is initially disinterested in the robot. That is, until it takes out the annoying robot toothbrush with a laser! The pair form a friendship, and Mai hides 7723 away in her garage at night. Unfortunately though, 7723 sustained damage to his core memory during the earlier chase and each night has to decide which of the memories he made with Mai that day he can delete in order to prevent his storage from reaching critical capacity. As they have fun together and become good friends, this gets harder to do each day, and you just know that eventually this isn't going to end well.
I really enjoyed Next Gen. It's very reminiscent of movies like Big Hero 6 and The Iron Giant and John Krasinski brings 7723 to life brilliantly. The animation is of such a high standard, beautifully detailed, and there are some fantastic action sequences, along with plenty of good humour throughout. And, as suspected, it does manage to pack a real emotional punch at times too. I sat and watched this with my daughter and it really is just a great family movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Snowden (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
As with every Oliver Stone movie, you have to consider context while watching it. Snowden is a persuasive essay attempting to turn the focus from the crime committed by Edward Snowden to the mass surveillance practices of the US government during the Bush and Obama administration. This story was huge when the leaks began hitting the internet and so I was very familiar with the story through the media coverage ensued. Through that coverage it was made to seem as though Snowden, a low level contractor, stole data and was putting it on the internet to spite the American government.
Later more information came forth that he wasn’t as low level as we were led to believe and that Snowden was claiming that he performed the illegal act out of love for his country, not out of spite to harm it. But for a large portion of the country the original story has already been burned into their brain and nothing short of Ronald Reagan descending from heaven to tell them otherwise will change that. A few months ago Donald Trump even called for Snowden’s execution, if that helps paint a picture of the mindset of a portion of the US population about Edward Snowden.
This movie was made to convince you otherwise, that Snowden was and still is a brave American hero. It tells the story beginning with his Special Forces training and takes you all the way through the incident and up to present day, with the actual infamous Edward Snowden closing out the movie. I won’t go into too much detail here because I hate when reviews ruin a movie but I will say that it covers the whole story right down to the Ocean Eleven’s esque way that he got the files out of secured US spy facility.
This movie surprisingly also weaves a love story in and out of the technical background of the data release and while I enjoyed that aspect of the movie, some of it made me question its authenticity… it wasn’t realistic at times how the two reacted to different problems that arose in their relationship.
I left the movie thinking how strange it was that the espionage was the most believable part of the movie and the love story seemed contrived.
Joseph Gorden-Levitt was awesome. I’ve watched enough Snowden videos to know that he nailed it. The love interest was cute and likeable, but the primary antagonist was a bit over the top for a movie based on reality. But I guess that’s what this movie was trying to tell me… that there are some seriously evil people working for our government.
The pacing was good, acting was great, subject matter was insanely interesting and the love story humanized the hacker/criminal/hero. Go see it with an open mind, consider the context with which the film was created and come to your own conclusion. Snowden… hero or villain?
Later more information came forth that he wasn’t as low level as we were led to believe and that Snowden was claiming that he performed the illegal act out of love for his country, not out of spite to harm it. But for a large portion of the country the original story has already been burned into their brain and nothing short of Ronald Reagan descending from heaven to tell them otherwise will change that. A few months ago Donald Trump even called for Snowden’s execution, if that helps paint a picture of the mindset of a portion of the US population about Edward Snowden.
This movie was made to convince you otherwise, that Snowden was and still is a brave American hero. It tells the story beginning with his Special Forces training and takes you all the way through the incident and up to present day, with the actual infamous Edward Snowden closing out the movie. I won’t go into too much detail here because I hate when reviews ruin a movie but I will say that it covers the whole story right down to the Ocean Eleven’s esque way that he got the files out of secured US spy facility.
This movie surprisingly also weaves a love story in and out of the technical background of the data release and while I enjoyed that aspect of the movie, some of it made me question its authenticity… it wasn’t realistic at times how the two reacted to different problems that arose in their relationship.
I left the movie thinking how strange it was that the espionage was the most believable part of the movie and the love story seemed contrived.
Joseph Gorden-Levitt was awesome. I’ve watched enough Snowden videos to know that he nailed it. The love interest was cute and likeable, but the primary antagonist was a bit over the top for a movie based on reality. But I guess that’s what this movie was trying to tell me… that there are some seriously evil people working for our government.
The pacing was good, acting was great, subject matter was insanely interesting and the love story humanized the hacker/criminal/hero. Go see it with an open mind, consider the context with which the film was created and come to your own conclusion. Snowden… hero or villain?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Published in 1880, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is considered one of the most influential Christian books of the nineteenth century. The success of the novel led to film adaptations, most notably the 1955 academy award winning version of the film string Charlton Heston. Fast forward to 2016 and MGM and Paramount Pictures hope to see continue the success of this proven story with their newest film adaptation Ben-Hur.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.