Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Dangerous Method (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Dangerous Method starts as Sabine Spielrein (Knightley) is to an asylum where she is treated by Carl Jung (Fassbender) for her irrational reaction to any stimulation. In the search for answers Carl turns to Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) who has been an expert in the sexual disorders people are meant to have.
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Rosie Lewis, presumably a penname, has been a professional foster carer for over seven years. During this time, she has dealt with children and teenagers from all sorts of backgrounds who are usually facing some form of crisis or difficulty. In latter years, Rosie has begun to combine her love of writing with her fostering experiences by writing story-like memoirs. <i>Taken</i> is Rosie’s latest publication, which reveals how emotionally challenging fostering can be.
Rosie first met Megan when she was only a few days old, struggling with the effects of neonatal abstinence syndrome and a cleft plate. Removed from her mother’s care – a drug addict – Megan needs a temporary home to go to. Rosie is more than happy to take care of Megan until her “forever home” can be found.
As time goes on, Rosie and her children become attached to the little girl and include her as part of the family. Megan’s salient recovery turns her into an energetic, slightly precocious toddler who absolutely adores Rosie’s family as much as they love her. But Rosie knows she will eventually have to say goodbye, no matter what her feelings.
Rosie explains to the reader how difficult it is to function properly as a foster carer once strong emotions have got involved. She dreams of being able to keep Megan forever, but when a couple are found who desperately want a child, Rosie has no choice but to say goodbye.
It is heartbreaking to see the effects of the separation on Rosie as well as on Megan, who, despite Rosie’s attempts to elucidate the situation, does not fully comprehend what is going on. Guiltily hoping that Megan’s irascible behaviour, or a cataclysmic event, puts the new parents off adoption, Rosie says goodbye to the little girl she loves with all her heart. However, her hopes are raised when it becomes clear the adoption is not sitting as well with the new parents as much as they originally hoped. Perhaps Rosie has a chance to become Megan’s “forever mummy” after all?
Told from Rosie’s professional perspective, readers are taken on a journey from a child’s unstable beginning, to a time when they are at peace with the world. It is impossible to be unaffected by the events in Megan’s life, or experience versions of Rosie’s own emotions.
Many foster carers, social workers and nurses have put their experiences onto paper to share with the world. Most are good storytellers and are able to create a tale that could almost be fiction, with good use of vocabulary and imagery. At times, it felt like Rosie was attempting to tell a story, but instead ended up with a formal account of events. As the book progressed, however, the reader becomes so invested in Megan’s wellbeing that this issue becomes unnoticeable.
Unlike stories about older children in care, Megan’s life is easier to read about since, being fostered as a new born baby, she has no demoralizing past to overcome. Taken is by far the happier story within its genre, not least because of its satisfying ending, but from the joy Megan brings to the lives of everyone around her, too. Those new to this style of book may find <i>Taken</i> a good way of easing themselves into the genre, rather than jumping in with a story about a child with a background full of unspeakable things.
Rosie Lewis, presumably a penname, has been a professional foster carer for over seven years. During this time, she has dealt with children and teenagers from all sorts of backgrounds who are usually facing some form of crisis or difficulty. In latter years, Rosie has begun to combine her love of writing with her fostering experiences by writing story-like memoirs. <i>Taken</i> is Rosie’s latest publication, which reveals how emotionally challenging fostering can be.
Rosie first met Megan when she was only a few days old, struggling with the effects of neonatal abstinence syndrome and a cleft plate. Removed from her mother’s care – a drug addict – Megan needs a temporary home to go to. Rosie is more than happy to take care of Megan until her “forever home” can be found.
As time goes on, Rosie and her children become attached to the little girl and include her as part of the family. Megan’s salient recovery turns her into an energetic, slightly precocious toddler who absolutely adores Rosie’s family as much as they love her. But Rosie knows she will eventually have to say goodbye, no matter what her feelings.
Rosie explains to the reader how difficult it is to function properly as a foster carer once strong emotions have got involved. She dreams of being able to keep Megan forever, but when a couple are found who desperately want a child, Rosie has no choice but to say goodbye.
It is heartbreaking to see the effects of the separation on Rosie as well as on Megan, who, despite Rosie’s attempts to elucidate the situation, does not fully comprehend what is going on. Guiltily hoping that Megan’s irascible behaviour, or a cataclysmic event, puts the new parents off adoption, Rosie says goodbye to the little girl she loves with all her heart. However, her hopes are raised when it becomes clear the adoption is not sitting as well with the new parents as much as they originally hoped. Perhaps Rosie has a chance to become Megan’s “forever mummy” after all?
Told from Rosie’s professional perspective, readers are taken on a journey from a child’s unstable beginning, to a time when they are at peace with the world. It is impossible to be unaffected by the events in Megan’s life, or experience versions of Rosie’s own emotions.
Many foster carers, social workers and nurses have put their experiences onto paper to share with the world. Most are good storytellers and are able to create a tale that could almost be fiction, with good use of vocabulary and imagery. At times, it felt like Rosie was attempting to tell a story, but instead ended up with a formal account of events. As the book progressed, however, the reader becomes so invested in Megan’s wellbeing that this issue becomes unnoticeable.
Unlike stories about older children in care, Megan’s life is easier to read about since, being fostered as a new born baby, she has no demoralizing past to overcome. Taken is by far the happier story within its genre, not least because of its satisfying ending, but from the joy Megan brings to the lives of everyone around her, too. Those new to this style of book may find <i>Taken</i> a good way of easing themselves into the genre, rather than jumping in with a story about a child with a background full of unspeakable things.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rocky Balboa (2006) in Movies
Jan 28, 2019
Surprisingly Good
I think I’ve stayed away from this movie for so long because I expected it to be garbage. I mean, let’s be adult about this, Rocky V was no picnic. I was done with Rocky. Until I saw the trailer for Creed. It was at that moment that I decided to give things another go. Yes, the boxer we all know and love Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) is back at it in Rocky Balboa facing off against his first (and hopefully last) opponent since Drago.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 9
Two things really grabbed me as the movie opens. I loved the beautiful shots of Philadelphia at the start. The city plays a huge role in Rocky’s character development and these shots helped get me in tune with the heart of what the city is all about. I also appreciated the first scene between Rocky and his son Rocky Jr. (Milo Ventimiglia) depicting their strained relationship since Adrian’s death. It’s an awkward scene that makes you sympathize with where Rocky is in his life.
How did he get to this point? It’s seem like he’s lost so much, yet he’s still that gentle character from the 70’s we fell in love with. Seeing this scene was enough to tell me this film would take a lot different approach than the previous movies.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Rocky’s older and not at the top of his game like he was when he took on Clubber Lang (what a name!). Yet he still found a way to get me out of my chair as he did in previous movies. The main bout gets pretty intense in spots as you root for the Italian Stallion to knock some sense into the new kid on the block. The conflict extends beyond the ring as well as Rocky tries to help people from his neighborhood while maintaining close relationships with family members Paulie (Burt Young) and Rocky Jr. On the surface he’s a hero, but underneath his life is in shambles. As an audience, we find ourselves rallying behind Rocky as we’ve done in all the others movies past.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 7
Compared to other films, it doesn’t quite have the same memorability as classic ones I’ve seen, but succeeds in giving us a reason to cheer and a reason to feel. Rocky Balboa succeeds in being more than just a movie about trading punches. Rather than being hollow and fight-driven, it’s a movie with real heart.
Pace: 4
The “heart” portion, unfortunately, comes at a cost. When you watch the movie, you have to adjust your expectations as things move at a much slower pace. Rocky doesn’t even consider making a return until well into the movie. I kept watching waiting for a fight to finally happen and it was slow-going. However, even with a slower pace than the previous movies, Balboa still shines.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 9
Somewhat predictable but no less powerful. It ties up nicely what we see at the beginning. A fitting finale to Rocky’s in-the-ring saga.
Overall: 87
Heroes in movies come in many forms. What makes Rocky so special is his consistency of character throughout the decades. He swore in the beginning to never change who he was, but I think he lied to us. I think he became an even better man. Rocky Balboa. Hero for the generations.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 9
Two things really grabbed me as the movie opens. I loved the beautiful shots of Philadelphia at the start. The city plays a huge role in Rocky’s character development and these shots helped get me in tune with the heart of what the city is all about. I also appreciated the first scene between Rocky and his son Rocky Jr. (Milo Ventimiglia) depicting their strained relationship since Adrian’s death. It’s an awkward scene that makes you sympathize with where Rocky is in his life.
How did he get to this point? It’s seem like he’s lost so much, yet he’s still that gentle character from the 70’s we fell in love with. Seeing this scene was enough to tell me this film would take a lot different approach than the previous movies.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Rocky’s older and not at the top of his game like he was when he took on Clubber Lang (what a name!). Yet he still found a way to get me out of my chair as he did in previous movies. The main bout gets pretty intense in spots as you root for the Italian Stallion to knock some sense into the new kid on the block. The conflict extends beyond the ring as well as Rocky tries to help people from his neighborhood while maintaining close relationships with family members Paulie (Burt Young) and Rocky Jr. On the surface he’s a hero, but underneath his life is in shambles. As an audience, we find ourselves rallying behind Rocky as we’ve done in all the others movies past.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 7
Compared to other films, it doesn’t quite have the same memorability as classic ones I’ve seen, but succeeds in giving us a reason to cheer and a reason to feel. Rocky Balboa succeeds in being more than just a movie about trading punches. Rather than being hollow and fight-driven, it’s a movie with real heart.
Pace: 4
The “heart” portion, unfortunately, comes at a cost. When you watch the movie, you have to adjust your expectations as things move at a much slower pace. Rocky doesn’t even consider making a return until well into the movie. I kept watching waiting for a fight to finally happen and it was slow-going. However, even with a slower pace than the previous movies, Balboa still shines.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 9
Somewhat predictable but no less powerful. It ties up nicely what we see at the beginning. A fitting finale to Rocky’s in-the-ring saga.
Overall: 87
Heroes in movies come in many forms. What makes Rocky so special is his consistency of character throughout the decades. He swore in the beginning to never change who he was, but I think he lied to us. I think he became an even better man. Rocky Balboa. Hero for the generations.
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated #murdertrending in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><strong>I don't know if this is something related to psychology, but <em>#Murdertrending</em> is both creepy and engrossing at the same time.</strong></h2>
I found myself reading this quicker than I normally would have (if we're not counting the days I procrastinated), and while I should have turned away from this book in horror instantly, I didn't. Maybe that says something about me or human nature in general. 🙈
<h3><em>#Murdertrending</em> gives off <em>Hunger Games</em> vibes</h3>
We have Dee Guerrera, a girl who is supposedly guilty of murdering her stepsister and is sent to Alcatraz 2.0, a prison for those who are convicted of murdering someone. <strong>The entire prison is full of killers, and they never know when they'll be the next person whose murder will be publicized for all to see.</strong> It's <em>Hunger Games</em> without fighting amongst the inmates, or rather capital punishment for the entertainment of millions of people.
(And Death Row Breakfast Club, which is a fitting name for Dee and her friends.)
<h3>I can't tell if I'm disappointed in the last few scenes.</h3>
<em>#Murdertrending</em> gave off that video game vibe sometimes - Press X and get a reagent! - as Dee found herself facing off against the government-sanctioned killers who are in charge of killing the inmates one by one. Fortunately for Dee and the reader's cruel enjoyment, she still has some obstacles in her way.
<h3>To be honest, this felt tied to current politics in the US</h3>
Maybe this is me being very critical and overthinking, but McNeil's latest book felt really relevant to what is currently going on today (added on with the social media snippets). Only this one is more fictionalized and brutal with a lot more death and blood. And heads rolling, among other disturbing things.
<h3><em>#Murdertrending</em> is very plot-driven</h3>
If you're looking for character development, there won't be much of it. McNeil's latest novel is plot-driven to the core, fast-paced and action-packed.
<h3>That ending though...</h3>
I did NOT see that coming - I mean, I <em>should</em> have, but I didn't. McNeil kept me distracted from what was really going on in the story - there is so much going on that I didn't focus on being a step ahead and putting it all together before the story came together on its own.
<h3>This smells of a sequel?!?!?!</h3>
I have no clue if this is true or not (sounds like it is according to various sources and Google searches), but I am all for a sequel if it happens since I am immensely curious about what happens to the characters who survive the first novel. (Do I sound like a horrible person now?)
<h2><em><strong>#Murdertrending</strong></em><strong> is deliciously dark and twisted - it's very plot-driven and action-packed that will keep you turning the pages despite how gross it may make you feel.</strong></h2>
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/murdertrending-by-gretchen-mcneil/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>I don't know if this is something related to psychology, but <em>#Murdertrending</em> is both creepy and engrossing at the same time.</strong></h2>
I found myself reading this quicker than I normally would have (if we're not counting the days I procrastinated), and while I should have turned away from this book in horror instantly, I didn't. Maybe that says something about me or human nature in general. 🙈
<h3><em>#Murdertrending</em> gives off <em>Hunger Games</em> vibes</h3>
We have Dee Guerrera, a girl who is supposedly guilty of murdering her stepsister and is sent to Alcatraz 2.0, a prison for those who are convicted of murdering someone. <strong>The entire prison is full of killers, and they never know when they'll be the next person whose murder will be publicized for all to see.</strong> It's <em>Hunger Games</em> without fighting amongst the inmates, or rather capital punishment for the entertainment of millions of people.
(And Death Row Breakfast Club, which is a fitting name for Dee and her friends.)
<h3>I can't tell if I'm disappointed in the last few scenes.</h3>
<em>#Murdertrending</em> gave off that video game vibe sometimes - Press X and get a reagent! - as Dee found herself facing off against the government-sanctioned killers who are in charge of killing the inmates one by one. Fortunately for Dee and the reader's cruel enjoyment, she still has some obstacles in her way.
<h3>To be honest, this felt tied to current politics in the US</h3>
Maybe this is me being very critical and overthinking, but McNeil's latest book felt really relevant to what is currently going on today (added on with the social media snippets). Only this one is more fictionalized and brutal with a lot more death and blood. And heads rolling, among other disturbing things.
<h3><em>#Murdertrending</em> is very plot-driven</h3>
If you're looking for character development, there won't be much of it. McNeil's latest novel is plot-driven to the core, fast-paced and action-packed.
<h3>That ending though...</h3>
I did NOT see that coming - I mean, I <em>should</em> have, but I didn't. McNeil kept me distracted from what was really going on in the story - there is so much going on that I didn't focus on being a step ahead and putting it all together before the story came together on its own.
<h3>This smells of a sequel?!?!?!</h3>
I have no clue if this is true or not (sounds like it is according to various sources and Google searches), but I am all for a sequel if it happens since I am immensely curious about what happens to the characters who survive the first novel. (Do I sound like a horrible person now?)
<h2><em><strong>#Murdertrending</strong></em><strong> is deliciously dark and twisted - it's very plot-driven and action-packed that will keep you turning the pages despite how gross it may make you feel.</strong></h2>
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/murdertrending-by-gretchen-mcneil/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
KlangDings - House of Music
Education, Games and Stickers
7.0
Rate It
App
Make music with the teeth-brushing walrus, the dancing bathtub or the yodelling spider. Play with...
BookBuddy Pro
Book and Productivity
App
BookBuddy is a powerful book management application that gives you access to your entire book...
The Festival Guide
Music and Magazines & Newspapers
App
The Festival Guide is a 500 page magazine that is packed with everything you need for the festival...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
A masterpiece
Film #9 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Toy Story
When Toy Story was first released in 1995, it was groundbreaking. The first ever fully computer animated film and the first released by Disney Pixar, this was also one of the first films I saw at the cinema as an 8 year old child. Admittedly at that age I was concentrating more on the colourful animated toys rather than appreciating the sheer wizardry on offer, but from repeated watches over the decades, I’ve come to fully recognise the sheer genius of this film.
Toy Story centres around the idea that toys are alive, a concept that most children would love to be true. It follows Woody, a cowboy voiced by Tom Hanks, who’s cushy existence as the top dog of Andy’s toys is disrupted by a new space ranger doll, Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. As Buzz soon becomes Andy’s favourite toy, Woody’s jealousy drives him to desperate measures that wind up with the pair of them becoming ‘lost toys’ and captives of evil neighbour Sid. And together with Buzz and Woody are a whole host of colourful and wacky toy characters, including Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Etch-a Sketch and a bucketful of toy soldiers to name but a few of the childhood throwbacks on offer here.
Watching this back 25 years later, it’s hard to believe this film was released in the mid-90s. Whilst you can tell that more recent Disney Pixar releases have improved massively on the animation since Toy Story, the standard of the animation in this is hugely impressive. There are some studios that can’t master this level of detailed animation even now as we move into 2021. The feature and intricacies on show here is impressive, especially with the toy characters - you need to look no further than the scales on Rex (voiced memorably by Wallace Michael Shawn) as a shining example of this.
It isn’t just the animation that that makes Toy Story so brilliant though, it’s the entire package. It’s a heartwarming and often hilarious buddy story of sorts, with some strangely adult messages hidden in the childlike story (Buzz’s disillusionment at being a toy rather than a real space ranger is particularly poignant). As a child this made me believe my toys were alive, and as an adult I’m still hesitant about donating or throwing away old cuddly toys. It’s also full of what we’ve all come to know and love about Disney Pixar: a film suitable for kids but full of grown up innuendos and adult jokes that makes it appropriate for all ages. Alongside this it has a fantastic voice cast in household names Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and of course brought us the first of many characters voiced by the unforgettable John Ratzenberger. And what further rounds this off is the catchy and touching original songs by Randy Newman. I doubt there are many people who haven’t heard “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”, a song that evokes such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside and is fully deserving of the ‘Best Original Song’ Oscar nomination.
Toy Story is undoubtedly a masterpiece in animation. Whilst it may not have aged incredibly well when comparing it with more recent releases, this is the film that first introduced us to the world of Disney Pixar and paved the way for all of those that have followed.
When Toy Story was first released in 1995, it was groundbreaking. The first ever fully computer animated film and the first released by Disney Pixar, this was also one of the first films I saw at the cinema as an 8 year old child. Admittedly at that age I was concentrating more on the colourful animated toys rather than appreciating the sheer wizardry on offer, but from repeated watches over the decades, I’ve come to fully recognise the sheer genius of this film.
Toy Story centres around the idea that toys are alive, a concept that most children would love to be true. It follows Woody, a cowboy voiced by Tom Hanks, who’s cushy existence as the top dog of Andy’s toys is disrupted by a new space ranger doll, Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. As Buzz soon becomes Andy’s favourite toy, Woody’s jealousy drives him to desperate measures that wind up with the pair of them becoming ‘lost toys’ and captives of evil neighbour Sid. And together with Buzz and Woody are a whole host of colourful and wacky toy characters, including Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Etch-a Sketch and a bucketful of toy soldiers to name but a few of the childhood throwbacks on offer here.
Watching this back 25 years later, it’s hard to believe this film was released in the mid-90s. Whilst you can tell that more recent Disney Pixar releases have improved massively on the animation since Toy Story, the standard of the animation in this is hugely impressive. There are some studios that can’t master this level of detailed animation even now as we move into 2021. The feature and intricacies on show here is impressive, especially with the toy characters - you need to look no further than the scales on Rex (voiced memorably by Wallace Michael Shawn) as a shining example of this.
It isn’t just the animation that that makes Toy Story so brilliant though, it’s the entire package. It’s a heartwarming and often hilarious buddy story of sorts, with some strangely adult messages hidden in the childlike story (Buzz’s disillusionment at being a toy rather than a real space ranger is particularly poignant). As a child this made me believe my toys were alive, and as an adult I’m still hesitant about donating or throwing away old cuddly toys. It’s also full of what we’ve all come to know and love about Disney Pixar: a film suitable for kids but full of grown up innuendos and adult jokes that makes it appropriate for all ages. Alongside this it has a fantastic voice cast in household names Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and of course brought us the first of many characters voiced by the unforgettable John Ratzenberger. And what further rounds this off is the catchy and touching original songs by Randy Newman. I doubt there are many people who haven’t heard “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”, a song that evokes such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside and is fully deserving of the ‘Best Original Song’ Oscar nomination.
Toy Story is undoubtedly a masterpiece in animation. Whilst it may not have aged incredibly well when comparing it with more recent releases, this is the film that first introduced us to the world of Disney Pixar and paved the way for all of those that have followed.
