Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Spotlight (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Contagion (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
A couple of years ago, news and health agencies the world over were concerned about a possible pandemic stemming from bird flu and swine flu. Thankfully like SARS a few years earlier, the outbreaks were rather small thanks to a wealth of precautionary information and measures. In the new film “Contagion” director Steven Soderbergh paints a frighteningly realistic look at a worldwide pandemic that spread without warning, and its devastating aftermath.
When businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returns from a business trip to Hong Kong with what appears to be a simple case of the flu, her husband Mitch (Matt Damon), figures it’s nothing to be overly concerned about. When Beth all of a sudden begins to convulse and later dies unexpectedly, doctors are at a loss to explain what happened.
Over the next few days, more and more people become sick and die including Mitch’s young stepson, which gets the national and international disease control organizations working overtime to try to trace, identify and treat this mysterious ailment that sweeping the globe. Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) leads the investigation in the United States and calls in Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), to track who may have come into contact with Beth upon her return to the Minneapolis. The World Health Organization sends Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) to Hong Kong trace possible origins.
As the first week passes more and more people become sick worldwide, cities start fighting a losing battle against frenzy and panic. In time the virus is identified but due to its unique nature, finding a vaccine and producing it can take several months with thousands of lives lost with each passing day. With chaos breaking loose and the bodies piling up, the authorities find themselves unable to deal with the threat they are facing and go to extreme measures such as closing the state borders to try to contain the spread of the virus.
Adding to the confusion is a freelance blogger named Alan (Jude Law), who has amassed a large audience with his conspiracy claims that there are indeed cures available for the mysterious virus. He contends the government elite and the pharmaceutical companies are exploiting the situation in order to milk maximum profit from the inevitable release of a vaccine.
The film deftly moves around the world showing the victims, scientists and investigators and how the crisis is affecting them. It also shows how quickly society can break down as scene after shocking scene of chaos and devastation are introduced juxtaposed with the number of days since the outbreak of the virus.
Soderbergh keeps you on the edge of your seat and doesn’t give you a moment’s rest. Characters are introduced and given just enough of a back story so that you understand their place in the film. Most heartbreaking is Matt Damon’s role as a father who’s left watching over his only remaining child, going to great measures to keep her safe while also dealing with the death of his wife and the unfolding secret of the last days of her life.
There is truly an impressive array of stars in the film, some of whom play brief but significant parts in the overall story. However, the movie’s strength is also its weakness in that with so many primary characters,there were some diverging storylines that did not get fully fleshed out.
While “Contagion” is not the first film to deal with viral outbreak, it is perhaps the most realistic as it doesn’t resort to any Hollywood standards such as car chases, explosions, starcrossed lovers and so on to tell its story. Instead it focuses on stark, somber scenarios and the struggles of each character is very easy to relate to.
Kudos has to be given to many of the stars of the film for their understated but pitch perfect work in very unglamorous roles. Their subtle & poignant acting underscore the dire situations that their characters find themselves in. It was refreshing to see leading men and women looking quite ordinary and letting the story carry the picture rather than focusing on one individual to save the day.
All throughout the film I found myself captivated and never once did I lose interest in the scenarios or characters nor did I find anything in the film impossible to believe. The film doesn’t go overboard on pointing fingers instead it gives an honest and unflinching look at a scenario that we can only hope will never happen. But as the film points out, viral outbreaks have occurred all throughout history. Hardly an encouraging message, but thanks to the stellar cast and gripping subject matter “Contagion” is a film you will not want to miss.
When businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returns from a business trip to Hong Kong with what appears to be a simple case of the flu, her husband Mitch (Matt Damon), figures it’s nothing to be overly concerned about. When Beth all of a sudden begins to convulse and later dies unexpectedly, doctors are at a loss to explain what happened.
Over the next few days, more and more people become sick and die including Mitch’s young stepson, which gets the national and international disease control organizations working overtime to try to trace, identify and treat this mysterious ailment that sweeping the globe. Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) leads the investigation in the United States and calls in Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), to track who may have come into contact with Beth upon her return to the Minneapolis. The World Health Organization sends Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) to Hong Kong trace possible origins.
As the first week passes more and more people become sick worldwide, cities start fighting a losing battle against frenzy and panic. In time the virus is identified but due to its unique nature, finding a vaccine and producing it can take several months with thousands of lives lost with each passing day. With chaos breaking loose and the bodies piling up, the authorities find themselves unable to deal with the threat they are facing and go to extreme measures such as closing the state borders to try to contain the spread of the virus.
Adding to the confusion is a freelance blogger named Alan (Jude Law), who has amassed a large audience with his conspiracy claims that there are indeed cures available for the mysterious virus. He contends the government elite and the pharmaceutical companies are exploiting the situation in order to milk maximum profit from the inevitable release of a vaccine.
The film deftly moves around the world showing the victims, scientists and investigators and how the crisis is affecting them. It also shows how quickly society can break down as scene after shocking scene of chaos and devastation are introduced juxtaposed with the number of days since the outbreak of the virus.
Soderbergh keeps you on the edge of your seat and doesn’t give you a moment’s rest. Characters are introduced and given just enough of a back story so that you understand their place in the film. Most heartbreaking is Matt Damon’s role as a father who’s left watching over his only remaining child, going to great measures to keep her safe while also dealing with the death of his wife and the unfolding secret of the last days of her life.
There is truly an impressive array of stars in the film, some of whom play brief but significant parts in the overall story. However, the movie’s strength is also its weakness in that with so many primary characters,there were some diverging storylines that did not get fully fleshed out.
While “Contagion” is not the first film to deal with viral outbreak, it is perhaps the most realistic as it doesn’t resort to any Hollywood standards such as car chases, explosions, starcrossed lovers and so on to tell its story. Instead it focuses on stark, somber scenarios and the struggles of each character is very easy to relate to.
Kudos has to be given to many of the stars of the film for their understated but pitch perfect work in very unglamorous roles. Their subtle & poignant acting underscore the dire situations that their characters find themselves in. It was refreshing to see leading men and women looking quite ordinary and letting the story carry the picture rather than focusing on one individual to save the day.
All throughout the film I found myself captivated and never once did I lose interest in the scenarios or characters nor did I find anything in the film impossible to believe. The film doesn’t go overboard on pointing fingers instead it gives an honest and unflinching look at a scenario that we can only hope will never happen. But as the film points out, viral outbreaks have occurred all throughout history. Hardly an encouraging message, but thanks to the stellar cast and gripping subject matter “Contagion” is a film you will not want to miss.
Deep Sleep and Relaxation Hypnosis- Cure Insomnia
Medical and Lifestyle
App
Does it work? 3.5 million people have used Mindifi's Deep Sleep and Relaxation hypnosis, a #1...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Invited in Books
Jun 25, 2019
A Decent Ghost Mystery
I had been eyeing The Invited by Jennifer McMahon since it first came out at the end of April. When a book club I'm in decided to make that their June read, I knew this was my opportunity to actually buy it. While it wasn't as great as I had imagined, it wasn't a bad read.
After receiving a big chunk of money from her father, Helen and her husband Nate decide to move to a small town in rural Vermont to build their own house. After buying the land at a very good price, Helen and Nate start building. It isn't long before they learn the legend of Hattie, a witch who was hanged on the bog where their house is being built. People swear the bog is haunted. Helen loves the history behind the bog and seeks out more information about Hattie which will ultimately put her and her husband in danger. Olive, a 14 year old girl, is searching for Hattie's treasure, another legend and wondering if the stories about her mother running off with another man or true. As Olive comes closer to discovering the truth about Hattie's treasure and what happened to her mother, it puts her that much closer to danger.
The plot for The Invited was interesting enough. I enjoyed learning about Hattie as well as her descendants. The book is written mostly from Olive's and Helen's point of view, but there are some characters where we get to see things from their point of view which I found intriguing. There are a few plot twists although I found them all to be easily predictable. Not one of the plot twists surprised me at all unfortunately. Still, I did enjoy reading the climax of the story and afterwards. I also enjoyed that there were no cliffhangers in this book.
I really enjoyed the character of Helen. She felt so realistic and like someone I would want to be friends with. I admired how laid back she was. I was indifferent about Nate. I just couldn't connect with him. I don't think he was written badly, but you could tell he wasn't meant to be a focal point in The Invited. I did like the character of Olive, but I felt like she was a lot younger than 14. I felt like she acted and spoke more like an 11 or 12 year old. I really had a hard time believing she was actually 14. I did admire how courageous she was and how determined on her goal whether it be to find Hattie's treasure or to find out the truth about what happened to her mother. I never really liked the character of Riley. She came across as someone who was trying too hard to be friendly. She felt too syrupy sweet. Hattie made a great ghost! There were times where I didn't trust her motives, and I couldn't figure out if I should be wary of her or if I should trust her.
The pacing for The Invited was slow throughout the majority of the book. The first few chapters were painfully slow. It was as if the author had word vomit and was describing every minute detail about the land and about Helen's inheritance. I felt like all that backstory was unneeded and definitely didn't need two or three chapters dedicated to it. After those chapters, the pacing picks up slightly, so it goes from being painfully slow to just slow. There were so many times I considered giving up on this book, but others in my book club said to keep on reading because it gets better. The pacing finally did pick up around 70 percent through the book. Once the pacing picked up, I couldn't put this book down! I had to know what would happen next even if it was predictable. (I had to make sure I had predicted correctly!)
Trigger warnings for The Invited include violence, death, murder, mentions of suicide, the occult, drug use (marijuana), drinking, some sexual references (not graphic), and profanity.
Overall, The Invited is a decent ghost story although there is more to the story than just that. It also makes for a decent mystery read. While it is mostly slow paced, the action does pick up eventually. I would recommend The Invited by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 16+ who enjoy a decent ghostly mystery.
After receiving a big chunk of money from her father, Helen and her husband Nate decide to move to a small town in rural Vermont to build their own house. After buying the land at a very good price, Helen and Nate start building. It isn't long before they learn the legend of Hattie, a witch who was hanged on the bog where their house is being built. People swear the bog is haunted. Helen loves the history behind the bog and seeks out more information about Hattie which will ultimately put her and her husband in danger. Olive, a 14 year old girl, is searching for Hattie's treasure, another legend and wondering if the stories about her mother running off with another man or true. As Olive comes closer to discovering the truth about Hattie's treasure and what happened to her mother, it puts her that much closer to danger.
The plot for The Invited was interesting enough. I enjoyed learning about Hattie as well as her descendants. The book is written mostly from Olive's and Helen's point of view, but there are some characters where we get to see things from their point of view which I found intriguing. There are a few plot twists although I found them all to be easily predictable. Not one of the plot twists surprised me at all unfortunately. Still, I did enjoy reading the climax of the story and afterwards. I also enjoyed that there were no cliffhangers in this book.
I really enjoyed the character of Helen. She felt so realistic and like someone I would want to be friends with. I admired how laid back she was. I was indifferent about Nate. I just couldn't connect with him. I don't think he was written badly, but you could tell he wasn't meant to be a focal point in The Invited. I did like the character of Olive, but I felt like she was a lot younger than 14. I felt like she acted and spoke more like an 11 or 12 year old. I really had a hard time believing she was actually 14. I did admire how courageous she was and how determined on her goal whether it be to find Hattie's treasure or to find out the truth about what happened to her mother. I never really liked the character of Riley. She came across as someone who was trying too hard to be friendly. She felt too syrupy sweet. Hattie made a great ghost! There were times where I didn't trust her motives, and I couldn't figure out if I should be wary of her or if I should trust her.
The pacing for The Invited was slow throughout the majority of the book. The first few chapters were painfully slow. It was as if the author had word vomit and was describing every minute detail about the land and about Helen's inheritance. I felt like all that backstory was unneeded and definitely didn't need two or three chapters dedicated to it. After those chapters, the pacing picks up slightly, so it goes from being painfully slow to just slow. There were so many times I considered giving up on this book, but others in my book club said to keep on reading because it gets better. The pacing finally did pick up around 70 percent through the book. Once the pacing picked up, I couldn't put this book down! I had to know what would happen next even if it was predictable. (I had to make sure I had predicted correctly!)
Trigger warnings for The Invited include violence, death, murder, mentions of suicide, the occult, drug use (marijuana), drinking, some sexual references (not graphic), and profanity.
Overall, The Invited is a decent ghost story although there is more to the story than just that. It also makes for a decent mystery read. While it is mostly slow paced, the action does pick up eventually. I would recommend The Invited by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 16+ who enjoy a decent ghostly mystery.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Take Me Apart by Kelela
5.8
Rate It
Album Watch
With great anticipation, Kelela's debut album emerges as an epic portrait of an artist spanning the...
dance electronic R&B pop
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Abandon (Abandon, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I read Meg Cabot's Vanished series (previously published as 1-800-WHERE-R-U) and have drawn the same conclusion about Abandon as I did about that series: She's a fabulous story teller and can weave a wonderful intriguing mysterious story that is highly addicting (I read Abandon in five hours without stopping) but she's not a very good writer.
Let me explain: The ARC was 304 pages. If she had cut out all the unneeded phrases, descriptions, and dead wood that slowed the story down and made it harder to read, it would be closer to 200. If it were shorter, she'd have more space for more of that great plot line that she's so good at developing. But instead, I'm stuck tripping over ungrammatical sentences and awkward phrases—and let's not forget whole unnecessary paragraphs with details that don't matter, set off by dashes right in the middle of the sentence, because that's just such a good thing to put in a novel—that force you to go back and read the sentence several times so your brain doesn't get to twisted.
As for the story itself: I can't praise it enough. It was a mystery I had to solve, and some of the small clues I figured out, and others I didn't. I loved that I could figure out stuff about the same time Pierce did, but I also loved that I didn't figure out the major mystery of the story until I was supposed to. Some novelists make it too obvious, but Cabot had just enough to make it work.
I liked Pierce, but there were a few times I wanted to shake her and tell her to grow up and be honest. That is one of the reasons I couldn't stop reading, though. I wanted to see what happened because of the choices she made. And then there was the time I wanted to slap her: of course John was in love with her, why did she think he was acting like that? silly girl. Yet I couldn't have mean thoughts towards her because I liked her (and, okay, I have a soft spot for crazy main characters). John? He was quite amazing. Wild thing. Dark troubled boy. Dangerous. John needs to climb out of that novel and through my bedroom window and be my boyfriend.
The pacing and tension was perfect: I started reading and didn't stop until about five hours later when I closed the book at the end. I couldn't stop reading. That's the kind of book I like.
Now if only Cabot could write. Yes I have read worse writers, but she would be so excellent if the interior monologue of the character was less frustrating.
Content/Recommendation: No language, no sex. Ages 15+
Let me explain: The ARC was 304 pages. If she had cut out all the unneeded phrases, descriptions, and dead wood that slowed the story down and made it harder to read, it would be closer to 200. If it were shorter, she'd have more space for more of that great plot line that she's so good at developing. But instead, I'm stuck tripping over ungrammatical sentences and awkward phrases—and let's not forget whole unnecessary paragraphs with details that don't matter, set off by dashes right in the middle of the sentence, because that's just such a good thing to put in a novel—that force you to go back and read the sentence several times so your brain doesn't get to twisted.
As for the story itself: I can't praise it enough. It was a mystery I had to solve, and some of the small clues I figured out, and others I didn't. I loved that I could figure out stuff about the same time Pierce did, but I also loved that I didn't figure out the major mystery of the story until I was supposed to. Some novelists make it too obvious, but Cabot had just enough to make it work.
I liked Pierce, but there were a few times I wanted to shake her and tell her to grow up and be honest. That is one of the reasons I couldn't stop reading, though. I wanted to see what happened because of the choices she made. And then there was the time I wanted to slap her: of course John was in love with her, why did she think he was acting like that? silly girl. Yet I couldn't have mean thoughts towards her because I liked her (and, okay, I have a soft spot for crazy main characters). John? He was quite amazing. Wild thing. Dark troubled boy. Dangerous. John needs to climb out of that novel and through my bedroom window and be my boyfriend.
The pacing and tension was perfect: I started reading and didn't stop until about five hours later when I closed the book at the end. I couldn't stop reading. That's the kind of book I like.
Now if only Cabot could write. Yes I have read worse writers, but she would be so excellent if the interior monologue of the character was less frustrating.
Content/Recommendation: No language, no sex. Ages 15+
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated Skin and Bone (Digging Up Bones #2) in Books
Mar 7, 2019
fabulous second book!
I was lucky enough to win an ARC of this book.
This is book TWO in the Digging Up Bones series, and you really SHOULD read book one, Bone To Pick, before you read this one. You'll need it to get a feel for Javi and Cloister before this book.
I'm not gonna write a blurby bit, cos if I'm honest (and I'm ALL about the honest!) I got a bit lost with the Janet Morrow storyline, and once I decided I would just read those bits, and not pay much attention, I liked this a lot better. Also being honest, this is highly likely to be ME (since I'm a bit of a mess at the moment) rather than this book, because I really did LOVE catching up with Javi, Cloister and Bournville!
They are such damaged, broken men, and it really is a pleasure watching them fall. Because they HAVE fallen, they just can't admit, not even to themselves, how much the other man means to him. Javi nearly does, but he shuts that thought down right quick! Cloister does admit he LIKES Javi, but I read far more into that, than was actually said.
It's the little things that tell a lot, you know? Like how Javi looks after Clositer when he gets hit by the truck. Like how Cloister tells Javi not to get shot. The random thoughts that make you giggle how they come out of nowhere, about they think about the other, about how they feel. They DO admit to feeling, at least to themselves, sorta, kinds, and it's those out of nowhere things I LOVE about these two! There is no way to predict where the comments and thoughts will come from. Love being kept on my toes.
We get more of Cloister's history, about his family and some of my questions (that I had after book one) are answered here. We get why Javi was sent to town, to work, after what happened in Phoenix.
I hope there is at least one more book, I really do! These guys NEED to be happy, like REALLY happy with each other and at the moment, while . . . . . content . . . .they aren't really happy. And you know, we don't know what's going to happen to Javi when his replacement comes to twon, a woman who does NOT have happy thoughts about Javi! And there is something going on in Javi's head about higher ups in the food chain, so I need to know about that!
So, thank you, Ms Moore, for my copy, I'm sorry I got a bit lost, but I'm still giving it the rating it deserves.
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book TWO in the Digging Up Bones series, and you really SHOULD read book one, Bone To Pick, before you read this one. You'll need it to get a feel for Javi and Cloister before this book.
I'm not gonna write a blurby bit, cos if I'm honest (and I'm ALL about the honest!) I got a bit lost with the Janet Morrow storyline, and once I decided I would just read those bits, and not pay much attention, I liked this a lot better. Also being honest, this is highly likely to be ME (since I'm a bit of a mess at the moment) rather than this book, because I really did LOVE catching up with Javi, Cloister and Bournville!
They are such damaged, broken men, and it really is a pleasure watching them fall. Because they HAVE fallen, they just can't admit, not even to themselves, how much the other man means to him. Javi nearly does, but he shuts that thought down right quick! Cloister does admit he LIKES Javi, but I read far more into that, than was actually said.
It's the little things that tell a lot, you know? Like how Javi looks after Clositer when he gets hit by the truck. Like how Cloister tells Javi not to get shot. The random thoughts that make you giggle how they come out of nowhere, about they think about the other, about how they feel. They DO admit to feeling, at least to themselves, sorta, kinds, and it's those out of nowhere things I LOVE about these two! There is no way to predict where the comments and thoughts will come from. Love being kept on my toes.
We get more of Cloister's history, about his family and some of my questions (that I had after book one) are answered here. We get why Javi was sent to town, to work, after what happened in Phoenix.
I hope there is at least one more book, I really do! These guys NEED to be happy, like REALLY happy with each other and at the moment, while . . . . . content . . . .they aren't really happy. And you know, we don't know what's going to happen to Javi when his replacement comes to twon, a woman who does NOT have happy thoughts about Javi! And there is something going on in Javi's head about higher ups in the food chain, so I need to know about that!
So, thank you, Ms Moore, for my copy, I'm sorry I got a bit lost, but I'm still giving it the rating it deserves.
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Butterfly Effect (2004) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Deeper than it first appears...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Having always being a fan of Time Travel and Science Fiction, I was always keen on seeing this film upon its initial release, seven years ago, now. But for one reason or another, this just didn't happen, leaving me to watch this on TV a couple of years later.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
