Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Digimon Adventure: Last Evolution Kizuna (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Since 1999, the anime Digimon has had multiple reiterations full of characters known as ‘Digi-Destined’, kids who are connected to a Digimon, or Digital Monsters. As a kid who grew up watching the original Digimon Adventures (1999), the first series of the show holds a place near and dear in my heart. So when Toei Animation announced that six films were being released from 2015-2017 with the original Digimon Adventures characters just as teens, the nostalgia wave hit me hard. While those films were great I thought that was the end of the original Digimon series group for good. Oh was I wrong!
Digimon Adventure: The Last Evolution Kizuna (2020), follows the events of Digimon Adventure Tri, it’s been a couple of years and the Digi-Destined are all off pursuing careers, or college. To break it down; Sora (Colleen O’Shaughnessey) is working on becoming a flower arranger, Mimi (Kate Higgins) is working at an online start-up, Joe (Robbie Daymond) is working to become a doctor, Izzy (Mona Marshall) to no one’s surprise is the president of a company, and Matt (Nicolas Roye) and Tai (Joshua Seth) are about to finish up college. TK (Johnny Yong Bosch) and Kari (Tara Sands) are also in the mix, but the story’s focus is on Tai and Matt. Throughout the entire Digimon franchise, these two are rivals as well as best friends and as the characters have gotten older the best friends bit is more of the focus. Now Tai and Matt are having to cope with the reality of growing up along side their digimon Agumon (Tom Fahn) and Gabumon (Kirk Thornton), but what does that mean for all the Digi-Destined and their Digimon?
To not spoil anything, the core group is faced with the issue of Digi-Destined across the globe falling into mysterious comas. When a research team from the United States shows up asking for the Digi-Destined’s help to fight against a new Digimon believed to be the cause of the global issue is really where the story starts to flesh out beyond what the main 8 characters are doing with their lives. However, can finding out the truth behind this mysterious new Digimon and will figuring out what to do with their futures work out for Matt and Tai? Will they be able to save the Digi-Destined across the global or is something lurking in plain sight that will put a stop to their plans? All these questions and more are answered in the film, you’ll just have to watch as see!
The film explores some major themes, like growing up, the ebbs and flows of friendship, and being able to let go. All themes that are important, as Digimon Adventure’s (1999) original audience is at that age of figuring out what do you want to do with your life? or what is your purpose or goal for the future? While these questions are far greater then one or two words or even tied down to an age, the film uses them to direct the narrative of how Tai and Matt develop throughout the story. To be transparent, I cried about 5 minutes after the film ended as it felt like a true ending for the main characters. The film pulls on all the right heartstrings as well as gives some good conflict for viewers to enjoy. Also if that wasn’t enough, Toei’s animation style for the series has changed throughout the years and the animation in the film was gorgeous. I would watch it again just for that alone, however, there are so many reasons to watch it.
I feel this film gives people who were die-hard Digimon Adventure (1999) fans closure in a way not many series gives. There is even some influence of Digimon Adventure 02 (2000) within the film and some other familiar characters so if your a fan of the second series it’s a great addition. Like many films who ride the nostalgia wave, Digimon Adventure: The Last Evolution Kizuna (2020) is no different as it make your laugh, cry, and remember why you love a franchise so much. So give it a shot if you were a fan of Digimon, love a good anime movie, or just wanna relive a childhood classic! However, to those not familiar with the series, it might be challenging not knowing the characters backstories as the movie like the series has an emphasis on their relationships as friends. However, they are rebooting the original Digimon Aventures so thats a place to start too!
Digimon Adventure: The Last Evolution Kizuna (2020), follows the events of Digimon Adventure Tri, it’s been a couple of years and the Digi-Destined are all off pursuing careers, or college. To break it down; Sora (Colleen O’Shaughnessey) is working on becoming a flower arranger, Mimi (Kate Higgins) is working at an online start-up, Joe (Robbie Daymond) is working to become a doctor, Izzy (Mona Marshall) to no one’s surprise is the president of a company, and Matt (Nicolas Roye) and Tai (Joshua Seth) are about to finish up college. TK (Johnny Yong Bosch) and Kari (Tara Sands) are also in the mix, but the story’s focus is on Tai and Matt. Throughout the entire Digimon franchise, these two are rivals as well as best friends and as the characters have gotten older the best friends bit is more of the focus. Now Tai and Matt are having to cope with the reality of growing up along side their digimon Agumon (Tom Fahn) and Gabumon (Kirk Thornton), but what does that mean for all the Digi-Destined and their Digimon?
To not spoil anything, the core group is faced with the issue of Digi-Destined across the globe falling into mysterious comas. When a research team from the United States shows up asking for the Digi-Destined’s help to fight against a new Digimon believed to be the cause of the global issue is really where the story starts to flesh out beyond what the main 8 characters are doing with their lives. However, can finding out the truth behind this mysterious new Digimon and will figuring out what to do with their futures work out for Matt and Tai? Will they be able to save the Digi-Destined across the global or is something lurking in plain sight that will put a stop to their plans? All these questions and more are answered in the film, you’ll just have to watch as see!
The film explores some major themes, like growing up, the ebbs and flows of friendship, and being able to let go. All themes that are important, as Digimon Adventure’s (1999) original audience is at that age of figuring out what do you want to do with your life? or what is your purpose or goal for the future? While these questions are far greater then one or two words or even tied down to an age, the film uses them to direct the narrative of how Tai and Matt develop throughout the story. To be transparent, I cried about 5 minutes after the film ended as it felt like a true ending for the main characters. The film pulls on all the right heartstrings as well as gives some good conflict for viewers to enjoy. Also if that wasn’t enough, Toei’s animation style for the series has changed throughout the years and the animation in the film was gorgeous. I would watch it again just for that alone, however, there are so many reasons to watch it.
I feel this film gives people who were die-hard Digimon Adventure (1999) fans closure in a way not many series gives. There is even some influence of Digimon Adventure 02 (2000) within the film and some other familiar characters so if your a fan of the second series it’s a great addition. Like many films who ride the nostalgia wave, Digimon Adventure: The Last Evolution Kizuna (2020) is no different as it make your laugh, cry, and remember why you love a franchise so much. So give it a shot if you were a fan of Digimon, love a good anime movie, or just wanna relive a childhood classic! However, to those not familiar with the series, it might be challenging not knowing the characters backstories as the movie like the series has an emphasis on their relationships as friends. However, they are rebooting the original Digimon Aventures so thats a place to start too!
Louise (64 KP) rated The Wonder in Books
Jul 2, 2018
This is Emma Donoghue’s latest book on the market, prior to picking it up I had heard some mixed reviews but the synopsis is what really pulled me in and regardless of what other readers thought I was going to read it and form my own opinion.
Now I picked up ‘Room’ a few years back and read about half and put it down for some unknown reason. This book is not like ‘Room’ so try not go into it thinking it’s going to be.
This is a historical fiction novel set in rural Ireland just after the Crimean war. Our protagonist is an English nurse who served under Miss Nightingale and goes by the name of Lib Wright. Lib is sent over to Ireland to observe an 11-year-old girl, Anna, who has claimed to have not eaten anything over the last 2-3 months. Lib and a Catholic nun take it turns to watch over Anna, 24hrs a day to see if she really is a miracle as proclaimed by the locals.
I liked this book, I was enthralled by the mystery of a small girl claiming to not have eaten. I was hooked line and sinker wanting to find out what was really happening. How could a child not eat? Was it all just a ploy for fame and money?
This book has a lot with religion involved as all the community and the rest of Ireland are Catholics. I am not a religious person, so a lot of the verses and prayers that were being said went over my head. Religion is the essence of this book, it proves how devout and bordering fanatic people can become.
The Wonder is a very atmospheric book and has a lot of descriptive writing and you really get a feel for the village and the people.
I liked Lib our protagonist, she was determined to find out the truth, she was sceptical from the start and was convinced she would not be there for long. She got frustrated a lot of the time for multiple reasons. 1, The family were not very forthcoming and didn’t like having a stranger in their house (understandable). 2, Anna was very timid and would not open up to Lib. 3, The nun, wouldn’t confer with her as to what happened on her shifts as they were supposed to be forming their own opinions. 4, The doctor looked down on Lib as just ‘help’ and when she voiced her concerns about Anna, she was cut off and told to just do her job.
The couple of things that let the book down for me was the pace of the book. This is an incredibly slow paced book and may not be for everyone. I usually don’t mind slow paced books but it felt like there was a lot of repetition and at points I was thinking to myself that surely this couldn’t on like this for the next 200 odd pages but it did. I think this is for readers who like more atmosphere to their books.
I rated this 3 out of 5 stars
Now I picked up ‘Room’ a few years back and read about half and put it down for some unknown reason. This book is not like ‘Room’ so try not go into it thinking it’s going to be.
This is a historical fiction novel set in rural Ireland just after the Crimean war. Our protagonist is an English nurse who served under Miss Nightingale and goes by the name of Lib Wright. Lib is sent over to Ireland to observe an 11-year-old girl, Anna, who has claimed to have not eaten anything over the last 2-3 months. Lib and a Catholic nun take it turns to watch over Anna, 24hrs a day to see if she really is a miracle as proclaimed by the locals.
I liked this book, I was enthralled by the mystery of a small girl claiming to not have eaten. I was hooked line and sinker wanting to find out what was really happening. How could a child not eat? Was it all just a ploy for fame and money?
This book has a lot with religion involved as all the community and the rest of Ireland are Catholics. I am not a religious person, so a lot of the verses and prayers that were being said went over my head. Religion is the essence of this book, it proves how devout and bordering fanatic people can become.
The Wonder is a very atmospheric book and has a lot of descriptive writing and you really get a feel for the village and the people.
I liked Lib our protagonist, she was determined to find out the truth, she was sceptical from the start and was convinced she would not be there for long. She got frustrated a lot of the time for multiple reasons. 1, The family were not very forthcoming and didn’t like having a stranger in their house (understandable). 2, Anna was very timid and would not open up to Lib. 3, The nun, wouldn’t confer with her as to what happened on her shifts as they were supposed to be forming their own opinions. 4, The doctor looked down on Lib as just ‘help’ and when she voiced her concerns about Anna, she was cut off and told to just do her job.
The couple of things that let the book down for me was the pace of the book. This is an incredibly slow paced book and may not be for everyone. I usually don’t mind slow paced books but it felt like there was a lot of repetition and at points I was thinking to myself that surely this couldn’t on like this for the next 200 odd pages but it did. I think this is for readers who like more atmosphere to their books.
I rated this 3 out of 5 stars
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ronyell (38 KP) rated Return to Oz (1985) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Dark Side of Oz!
Dorothy Gale had just come back from the Land of Oz, but when she tried to tell her aunt and uncle about her adventures in Oz, they thought that Dorothy had gone crazy, so they decided to take her to a doctor that will give her treatment for her insanity. The treatment turns out to be shock therapy and Dorothy, with a little help from a mysterious girl, escapes from the mental hospital and ended up in the land of Oz once again. But, once Dorothy arrives in Oz, she discovers that the Land of Oz has been taken over by the Nome King and that the Scarecrow, who was the King of Oz, has been kidnapped by the Nome King. So, Dorothy along with some help from a pumpkin man named Jack Pumpkinhead, a mechanical robot named Tik-Tok, her hen Billina and a half moose half sofa creature named the Gump try to journey to the Nome King's kingdom to rescue the Scarecrow, while encountering nightmarish creatures such as Princess Mombi and the Wheelers along the way.
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Sarah (7798 KP) rated It’s A Sin in TV
Feb 7, 2021
Outstanding drama
It’s A Sin is the latest drama from the mind of Russell T Davies, the man behind Queer as Folk, Cucumber and the revival of Doctor Who back in 2005. It follows a group of gay men and their friends in London from 1981 to 1991, depicting how the developing HIV and AIDS crisis impacted on their lives.
The series concentrates on 5 friends who meet in 1981 and move into a flat together. There’s outgoing and smart Ritchie (Olly Alexander), shy and mild mannered Colin (Callum Scott Howells), flamboyant Nigerian Roscoe (Omari Douglas), sweet Ash (Nathaniel Curtis) and outgoing, responsible Jill (Lydia West). It’s A Sin follows the friends as they party and lead promiscuous lifestyles over the 80s, only for the AIDS crisis to slowly weave its way into their lives and affect friends and colleagues closest to them. Each deals with the developing crisis in their own way: Jill fights for AIDS awareness and help for those that are suffering, whereas Ritchie remains in denial and spreads conspiracy theories about AIDS. But by 1991, the lives of the group and their families have been irrevocably changed.
It’s A Sin is a powerful drama about an emotive and serious subject. While it is not based on a completely true story (only Jill is loosely based on a real person, Jill Nalder, a friend of Davies), Russell T Davies has based this around his and his friends experiences of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and watching this you can really believe that these sorts of events happened across the 80s and 90s. The attitudes and experiences shown here, from the hedonistic lifestyles to the rampant denial and conspiracy theories, are terrifying and sadly a true to life depiction of the attitudes at the time, and make for a rather emotional and sometimes harrowing watch.
Despite the serious subject, It’s A Sin isn’t entirely sombre. It starts out as a story of friendship and fun and there are a lot of heartwarming scenes and a surprising amount of laughs. Some might think the uplifting side of this drama detracts from the seriousness of the AIDS crisis, but personally I found the lighthearted scenes helped balance the rather sobering seriousness, especially as the episodes gradually become more and more grave as the crisis progresses. Even the gay sex scenes are fun and made mostly for laughs rather than any sort of eroticism. It’s impressive that Davies has managed to pull off a series that seamlessly blends lighthearted entertainment with a serious topic, without making light of such a harrowing crisis.
It helps that the cast are fantastic. Olly Alexander, who I knew nothing about other than recognising a few Years and Years songs, is an absolute star and a standout as Ritchie. He’s charismatic and engaging and when he’s on screen, you can’t take your eyes off him. The rest of the main cast too are just as good, especially this being their first major tv role in the case of Howells and Douglas. They’re ably supported by a host of seasoned veterans, including Neil Patrick Harris as Colin’s work colleague, Stephen Fry as a closeted MP that Roscoe meets, and Keeley Hawes and Shaun Dooley as Ritchie’s parents. Hawes and Dooley are especially moving and ultimately surprising in the later episodes, when their true attitudes as parents are revealed. My only real criticism of this series is so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but I did get a little frustrated that Ritchie’s full name was Ritchie Tozer, as this is the same name as Richie Tozier from Stephen King’s IT. Admittedly a different spelling, but it did grate on me a little throughout the episodes as it’s not exactly a common name.
However despite my reservations on character naming, It’s A Sin is a fantastic heartwarming yet sobering drama that can’t be faulted. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything so engaging and emotional.
The series concentrates on 5 friends who meet in 1981 and move into a flat together. There’s outgoing and smart Ritchie (Olly Alexander), shy and mild mannered Colin (Callum Scott Howells), flamboyant Nigerian Roscoe (Omari Douglas), sweet Ash (Nathaniel Curtis) and outgoing, responsible Jill (Lydia West). It’s A Sin follows the friends as they party and lead promiscuous lifestyles over the 80s, only for the AIDS crisis to slowly weave its way into their lives and affect friends and colleagues closest to them. Each deals with the developing crisis in their own way: Jill fights for AIDS awareness and help for those that are suffering, whereas Ritchie remains in denial and spreads conspiracy theories about AIDS. But by 1991, the lives of the group and their families have been irrevocably changed.
It’s A Sin is a powerful drama about an emotive and serious subject. While it is not based on a completely true story (only Jill is loosely based on a real person, Jill Nalder, a friend of Davies), Russell T Davies has based this around his and his friends experiences of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and watching this you can really believe that these sorts of events happened across the 80s and 90s. The attitudes and experiences shown here, from the hedonistic lifestyles to the rampant denial and conspiracy theories, are terrifying and sadly a true to life depiction of the attitudes at the time, and make for a rather emotional and sometimes harrowing watch.
Despite the serious subject, It’s A Sin isn’t entirely sombre. It starts out as a story of friendship and fun and there are a lot of heartwarming scenes and a surprising amount of laughs. Some might think the uplifting side of this drama detracts from the seriousness of the AIDS crisis, but personally I found the lighthearted scenes helped balance the rather sobering seriousness, especially as the episodes gradually become more and more grave as the crisis progresses. Even the gay sex scenes are fun and made mostly for laughs rather than any sort of eroticism. It’s impressive that Davies has managed to pull off a series that seamlessly blends lighthearted entertainment with a serious topic, without making light of such a harrowing crisis.
It helps that the cast are fantastic. Olly Alexander, who I knew nothing about other than recognising a few Years and Years songs, is an absolute star and a standout as Ritchie. He’s charismatic and engaging and when he’s on screen, you can’t take your eyes off him. The rest of the main cast too are just as good, especially this being their first major tv role in the case of Howells and Douglas. They’re ably supported by a host of seasoned veterans, including Neil Patrick Harris as Colin’s work colleague, Stephen Fry as a closeted MP that Roscoe meets, and Keeley Hawes and Shaun Dooley as Ritchie’s parents. Hawes and Dooley are especially moving and ultimately surprising in the later episodes, when their true attitudes as parents are revealed. My only real criticism of this series is so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but I did get a little frustrated that Ritchie’s full name was Ritchie Tozer, as this is the same name as Richie Tozier from Stephen King’s IT. Admittedly a different spelling, but it did grate on me a little throughout the episodes as it’s not exactly a common name.
However despite my reservations on character naming, It’s A Sin is a fantastic heartwarming yet sobering drama that can’t be faulted. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything so engaging and emotional.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 16, 2021
Relationship between Shaun and Katy (1 more)
Great Shakespearean level of story
Ten rings to rule them all
Positives:
- This is Marvel at its best. A script (with Shakespearean undertones) that melds action with good character development and laugh-out-loud feel-good dialogue. The great thing is that you don't need to be a Marvel nerd to enjoy this one. Yes, there are some fabulous Easter Eggs for Marvel fans (and a wonderful return of a character from one of the early films). But it's almost a standalone feature in its own right.
- The action sequences are top-notch, particularly an early fight on a careering San Francisco "bendy-bus". Some great martial-arts reminiscent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", made more exciting by the fact that the impressive Simu Liu did all his own stunts.
- The relationship built between Shaun and Katy is wonderful, and the actors deliver on it brilliantly: no wonder when you have the exceptional Awkwafina on the other end of it. Similarly, the relationship built between Shang-Chi and his father is powerful, thanks to some wonderful acting from Tony Chiu-Wai Leung. So good in the gripping (and erotic) 'Lust, Caution', I believe this is his first English-speaking film.
- With the odd exception (see below), the special effects are top-notch.
Negatives:
- I thought this was 5* all the way until the final reel, when we descended into a CGI-driven "Godzilla vs Kong" finale. I hate CGI that's just a blur of action across the screen where you're struggling to understand what's going on. Less would be more here for me.
- The movie makes extensive use of 'flashbacks' and, for me, there was a bit too much heavy-handedness in their use. I muttered "enough already" to a few of them, since they were taking us out of the movie's current narrative.
- There were a couple of effects that looked like the intern at the special effects company had put them together during a coffee break. An early plunge of a jeep into a forest and some rather obvious green-screen stuff in the finale. Surprised that these weren't caught and redone.
Timeline?: So, it took more of a Marvel nerd than I am (my wonderful daughter-in-law Bronwyn) to point out that although this film is set (largely) in the "Present Day", the events of "Avengers: Endgame" actually happen in 2023. So in the Marvel timeline, this is set in between Thanos's "blip" and "the return". This is the reason why Wong is present but not Doctor Strange, for example.
Summary Thoughts: Marvel goes East! This is a really entertaining addition to the franchise, mixing Marvel action with Eastern mysticism and martial arts. It's an impressive job by director and co-writer Destin Daniel Cretton, in only his second feature (he did "Just Mercy" in 2019).
As a Marvel film, there are of course end-credit scenes ("monkeys" in onemannsmovies speak). A mid-title one is the best, bringing some additional Marvel characters into the mix. And there's a post-credits one which sets up for further sequels but which I found rather irritating.
It's ironic that a Marvel movie so right for the Chinese market - the first to be headlined by an Asian actor and with substantial Mandarin dialogue - might not get a release in China. According to this report, this appears to be for two reasons: firstly that the actor Simu Liu made some derogatory remarks about China in the past, and secondly that in the comics Shang Chi's father is Fu Manchu - a Western-derived character with racial overtones.
This doesn't seem to have hurt it so far. After less than two weeks of opening, it has made $262 million on a budget estimated to be $150-200 million.
(For the full graphical review and video check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
- This is Marvel at its best. A script (with Shakespearean undertones) that melds action with good character development and laugh-out-loud feel-good dialogue. The great thing is that you don't need to be a Marvel nerd to enjoy this one. Yes, there are some fabulous Easter Eggs for Marvel fans (and a wonderful return of a character from one of the early films). But it's almost a standalone feature in its own right.
- The action sequences are top-notch, particularly an early fight on a careering San Francisco "bendy-bus". Some great martial-arts reminiscent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", made more exciting by the fact that the impressive Simu Liu did all his own stunts.
- The relationship built between Shaun and Katy is wonderful, and the actors deliver on it brilliantly: no wonder when you have the exceptional Awkwafina on the other end of it. Similarly, the relationship built between Shang-Chi and his father is powerful, thanks to some wonderful acting from Tony Chiu-Wai Leung. So good in the gripping (and erotic) 'Lust, Caution', I believe this is his first English-speaking film.
- With the odd exception (see below), the special effects are top-notch.
Negatives:
- I thought this was 5* all the way until the final reel, when we descended into a CGI-driven "Godzilla vs Kong" finale. I hate CGI that's just a blur of action across the screen where you're struggling to understand what's going on. Less would be more here for me.
- The movie makes extensive use of 'flashbacks' and, for me, there was a bit too much heavy-handedness in their use. I muttered "enough already" to a few of them, since they were taking us out of the movie's current narrative.
- There were a couple of effects that looked like the intern at the special effects company had put them together during a coffee break. An early plunge of a jeep into a forest and some rather obvious green-screen stuff in the finale. Surprised that these weren't caught and redone.
Timeline?: So, it took more of a Marvel nerd than I am (my wonderful daughter-in-law Bronwyn) to point out that although this film is set (largely) in the "Present Day", the events of "Avengers: Endgame" actually happen in 2023. So in the Marvel timeline, this is set in between Thanos's "blip" and "the return". This is the reason why Wong is present but not Doctor Strange, for example.
Summary Thoughts: Marvel goes East! This is a really entertaining addition to the franchise, mixing Marvel action with Eastern mysticism and martial arts. It's an impressive job by director and co-writer Destin Daniel Cretton, in only his second feature (he did "Just Mercy" in 2019).
As a Marvel film, there are of course end-credit scenes ("monkeys" in onemannsmovies speak). A mid-title one is the best, bringing some additional Marvel characters into the mix. And there's a post-credits one which sets up for further sequels but which I found rather irritating.
It's ironic that a Marvel movie so right for the Chinese market - the first to be headlined by an Asian actor and with substantial Mandarin dialogue - might not get a release in China. According to this report, this appears to be for two reasons: firstly that the actor Simu Liu made some derogatory remarks about China in the past, and secondly that in the comics Shang Chi's father is Fu Manchu - a Western-derived character with racial overtones.
This doesn't seem to have hurt it so far. After less than two weeks of opening, it has made $262 million on a budget estimated to be $150-200 million.
(For the full graphical review and video check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated Fearless (Somerton Security #3) in Books
Nov 16, 2018
far darker than the others, but equally brilliant!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book direct from the author, and I thank Ms Dyer for that!
This is book three in the Somerton Security series and I would strongly recommend that you read books one, Defenseless and book two, Relentless before you read this one. There is some of an on-going story arc, and I don't think you'll get the full benefit of THIS book, if you don't. And,I mean, both are five star reads too!
We haven't met Will or Cooper before, but we know of Will. He is Georgia's brother and we thought him long dead. Cooper is a sniper, and they have talked before, Will and Coop, long intimate conversations, but never got round to meeting. When Coop's life is threatened by her actions on orders, she needs Will to find the answers and clear her name. She just needs to free Will from his captivity.
I loved this one, too!
It's far darker than the other two, because some of Will's torture is described, in detail, as it happens and as memories surfacing, but it's needed. You NEED to know what happened to Will, while he was held all that time, because it has some baring on what happens later in the book. Quite graphic, but absolutely necessary.
Will and Coop's history is all phone calls and texts, but I loved that the full picture isn't immediately clear. You're left guessing at the clues and I love being kept on my toes.
I loved that Coop could SEE Will, you know, under all that dirt and grime and all those scars. She could see the man he was, will be again, even if Will couldn't. Loved that Will knew he had to let Coop go, if he was going to keep her and LOVED how he pulled her back!! I was like, way to go man!!
Parker and Georgia, and Ethan and Natalia all pop up, if only towards the end but it was nice that they did.
There is a character here who has piqued my interest, particularly after what he says to Coop and Will when the sh*t hits the fan, and more importantly, it was the WAY he said it. Makes me think that HIS story could be next, and he isn't quite the bad guy he portrays here. Maybe he is, but I think there is a teeny tiny soft spot in his heart for a certain doctor who is missing.
Please keep these coming!!
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book three in the Somerton Security series and I would strongly recommend that you read books one, Defenseless and book two, Relentless before you read this one. There is some of an on-going story arc, and I don't think you'll get the full benefit of THIS book, if you don't. And,I mean, both are five star reads too!
We haven't met Will or Cooper before, but we know of Will. He is Georgia's brother and we thought him long dead. Cooper is a sniper, and they have talked before, Will and Coop, long intimate conversations, but never got round to meeting. When Coop's life is threatened by her actions on orders, she needs Will to find the answers and clear her name. She just needs to free Will from his captivity.
I loved this one, too!
It's far darker than the other two, because some of Will's torture is described, in detail, as it happens and as memories surfacing, but it's needed. You NEED to know what happened to Will, while he was held all that time, because it has some baring on what happens later in the book. Quite graphic, but absolutely necessary.
Will and Coop's history is all phone calls and texts, but I loved that the full picture isn't immediately clear. You're left guessing at the clues and I love being kept on my toes.
I loved that Coop could SEE Will, you know, under all that dirt and grime and all those scars. She could see the man he was, will be again, even if Will couldn't. Loved that Will knew he had to let Coop go, if he was going to keep her and LOVED how he pulled her back!! I was like, way to go man!!
Parker and Georgia, and Ethan and Natalia all pop up, if only towards the end but it was nice that they did.
There is a character here who has piqued my interest, particularly after what he says to Coop and Will when the sh*t hits the fan, and more importantly, it was the WAY he said it. Makes me think that HIS story could be next, and he isn't quite the bad guy he portrays here. Maybe he is, but I think there is a teeny tiny soft spot in his heart for a certain doctor who is missing.
Please keep these coming!!
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Do No Harm in Books
Feb 25, 2021
A dark look into how far a mother would go to save her child
After a tough childhood, where she was orphaned and spent time in foster care, Emma finally has the life she's always wanted. A successful doctor, she has a loving husband, Nate, and a young son, Josh. But that all stands to change when Josh, who is only five, is diagnosed with leukemia. Even with her hospital insurance, Josh's potential life-saving treatment will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Determined to save Josh no matter what, Emma makes the decision to sell opioids. Her choice puts her directly against Nate, a local police officer, who is investigating the death of a potential drug dealer. Emma will do anything to save Josh--does that include murder?
"I felt like I'd been dropped down a rabbit hole with the wolf sitting right outside. And the wolf was my husband."
This is a brutal dark read that pulls you into Emma and Nate's dilemma immediately. Personally, I found it hard to read about Josh's illness. I have a difficult time with books about kids being sick. But, McDonald is an excellent writer, and she does a wonderful job portraying stricken parents, pushed to the brink, who would do anything for their child. For Emma, it's turning to selling drugs. For Nate, it's working constantly to solve his current case, which means a promotion that could brings additional money for their family. The story is told from each of their perspectives, ratcheting up the tension with each chapter.
Emma, it seems, really has no limits on what she would do for Josh. McDonald makes the reader question: how far would you go to save your child? The book also offers a nuanced perspective on the opioid crisis, versus the usual "drugs bad" stance we get in many novels, which I appreciated. The entire novel makes you think and question standard perspectives in so many ways. It turns good versus evil and right versus wrong on its heels. And it offers a dark and insightful look into drug addiction and chronic pain and how families support each other (or don't).
Overall, this isn't an easy read, but it's a well-written and compelling one. It's timely, with an excellent perspective on the drug problems facing Americans and leaves the reader questioning much about right versus wrong. 4 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It is available on 2/16/2021.
"I felt like I'd been dropped down a rabbit hole with the wolf sitting right outside. And the wolf was my husband."
This is a brutal dark read that pulls you into Emma and Nate's dilemma immediately. Personally, I found it hard to read about Josh's illness. I have a difficult time with books about kids being sick. But, McDonald is an excellent writer, and she does a wonderful job portraying stricken parents, pushed to the brink, who would do anything for their child. For Emma, it's turning to selling drugs. For Nate, it's working constantly to solve his current case, which means a promotion that could brings additional money for their family. The story is told from each of their perspectives, ratcheting up the tension with each chapter.
Emma, it seems, really has no limits on what she would do for Josh. McDonald makes the reader question: how far would you go to save your child? The book also offers a nuanced perspective on the opioid crisis, versus the usual "drugs bad" stance we get in many novels, which I appreciated. The entire novel makes you think and question standard perspectives in so many ways. It turns good versus evil and right versus wrong on its heels. And it offers a dark and insightful look into drug addiction and chronic pain and how families support each other (or don't).
Overall, this isn't an easy read, but it's a well-written and compelling one. It's timely, with an excellent perspective on the drug problems facing Americans and leaves the reader questioning much about right versus wrong. 4 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It is available on 2/16/2021.