Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
The much anticipated new release, I was amazed that I managed to avoid seeing the trailer or spoilers (I even only vaguely saw the poster), and after seeing the film... I'm not sure that was entirely sensible, I should probably have knocked down my anticipation a bit by looking at all of it.
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Extraordinary Means in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Extraordinary Means</i> is a coming of age novel by Robyn Schneider that promises to live up to the expectations of John Green and Stephen Chbosky fans. Set in the near future, Lane Rosen has spent his seventeen years studying and making sure he is always achieving his best at school. With high hopes of getting into Stanford, he is distraught when he is sent to Latham House, a sanatorium in the Santa Cruz Mountains, after contracting tuberculosis.
Although in today’s society tuberculosis is curable, Schneider has invented a total drug resistant TB, which is highly contagious, therefore needs to be contained. Lane finds himself in the middle of nowhere surrounded by other teenagers with the incurable disease. Here he meets Sadie Bennett with whom, after a shaky start, he develops a close relationship.
Ironically, whilst suffering with an illness that could kill him, Lane learns there is a lot more to life than school. With his new friends: Sadie, Nick, Marina and Charlie; Lane begins to become more adventurous and starts to relax and have fun whilst they wait for scientists to come up with a cure. The only trouble with this waiting game is that the odds of some of them not living long enough to see this cure is fairly high.
Narrated by both Lane and Sadie, <i>Extraordinary Means</i> is a love story with a heart-breaking ending. The readers really feel for the teens as they are separated from their family, and forgotten about by their friends. Unlike other potentially terminal illness, they cannot have support from their loved ones because of the risk of spreading the disease.
There is an underlying sadness to the novel, as the reader knows that no matter how much fun the characters have and no matter what their hopes and dreams, chances are something dreadful could happen. With this in mind, the story becomes much more powerful and moving as Sadie, Lane and friends determine to keep on going and enjoy their lives on a day-to-day basis.
Schneider is an excellent writer who has created a contemporary romance with a unique setting. The imagination involved with the tuberculosis could almost describe the novel as dystopian minus the science fiction genre. <i>Extraordinary Means</i> is the perfect novel for young adult fans, but warning: it could break your heart!
Extraordinary Means</i> is a coming of age novel by Robyn Schneider that promises to live up to the expectations of John Green and Stephen Chbosky fans. Set in the near future, Lane Rosen has spent his seventeen years studying and making sure he is always achieving his best at school. With high hopes of getting into Stanford, he is distraught when he is sent to Latham House, a sanatorium in the Santa Cruz Mountains, after contracting tuberculosis.
Although in today’s society tuberculosis is curable, Schneider has invented a total drug resistant TB, which is highly contagious, therefore needs to be contained. Lane finds himself in the middle of nowhere surrounded by other teenagers with the incurable disease. Here he meets Sadie Bennett with whom, after a shaky start, he develops a close relationship.
Ironically, whilst suffering with an illness that could kill him, Lane learns there is a lot more to life than school. With his new friends: Sadie, Nick, Marina and Charlie; Lane begins to become more adventurous and starts to relax and have fun whilst they wait for scientists to come up with a cure. The only trouble with this waiting game is that the odds of some of them not living long enough to see this cure is fairly high.
Narrated by both Lane and Sadie, <i>Extraordinary Means</i> is a love story with a heart-breaking ending. The readers really feel for the teens as they are separated from their family, and forgotten about by their friends. Unlike other potentially terminal illness, they cannot have support from their loved ones because of the risk of spreading the disease.
There is an underlying sadness to the novel, as the reader knows that no matter how much fun the characters have and no matter what their hopes and dreams, chances are something dreadful could happen. With this in mind, the story becomes much more powerful and moving as Sadie, Lane and friends determine to keep on going and enjoy their lives on a day-to-day basis.
Schneider is an excellent writer who has created a contemporary romance with a unique setting. The imagination involved with the tuberculosis could almost describe the novel as dystopian minus the science fiction genre. <i>Extraordinary Means</i> is the perfect novel for young adult fans, but warning: it could break your heart!
JT (287 KP) rated Killer Elite (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Just another mindless Statham master-class of ass kicking? Think again people, this one is a whole different ball game, and one that sets this easily one of the Stath’s best to date. Paired alongside Robert De Niro would be an honour in itself for any actor and the rapport between the two was like they had been lifelong friends.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Wheelman (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Grillo is great (1 more)
Decent script
One Hell Of A Night
Wheelman is a Netflix movie that unfortunately debuted on the same date as the hotly anticipated Stephen King adaption, 1922. Though Wheelman deserves more than to be overlooked and although I didn't expect much going into it, I came away afterwards pleasantly surprised.
This movie reminds me of a bunch of others. There is some aspects of Phonebooth used here, it was also reminiscent of a Tom Hardy film called Locke that came out a couple of years ago. It is also similar to what Drive was marketed as in the trailers before it's release, (even though Drive ended up being a psychological nior drama.) The movie took a while to convince me; for the first 15 minutes nothing happened that really excited me, but once I got a bit deeper into and more invested in the story that was unfolding, I ended up being sucked into the wild ride that the protagonist was going through. I think that the film's success on that front, relies a great deal on the performance of Frank Grillo, so it's just as well he brought his A-game here. For 99% of the movie, Grillo is onscreen, so there is no hiding from the camera in terms of his performance and he nails every second of it. He really manages to make an insanely dangerous situation feel grounded and relatable. The other actors are mostly featured via their voices on the phone, which again makes their performances difficult to deliver, but they all manage it convincingly. I always knew who each person was in relation to each other and what each character's motives were, which isn't always clear in a movie where most characters are only heard on the phone.
The script is decent, but I feel that a lot of the dialogue was ad-libbed, which again adds a natural, more realistic feel to the events that are unfolding. This was a good move by the director and the direction overall is great. There are some fairly odd creative choices made, but all of them are effective and feel worthwhile. The cinematography and sound mixing are implemented effectively and add to the overall urgent tone that the movie is pursuing.
Overall, this is definitely worth a watch. To me, it is like a callback to a 70's action chase thriller, with a modern twist. There is also an element of film noir present and the intense tone will keep you engaged until the end credits. You do need to stick with the film past the fifteen minute mark though. Although the whole thing is only 82 minutes long in it's entirety, it takes while to really suck you in, but once it does, it is a really fun ride worth taking.
This movie reminds me of a bunch of others. There is some aspects of Phonebooth used here, it was also reminiscent of a Tom Hardy film called Locke that came out a couple of years ago. It is also similar to what Drive was marketed as in the trailers before it's release, (even though Drive ended up being a psychological nior drama.) The movie took a while to convince me; for the first 15 minutes nothing happened that really excited me, but once I got a bit deeper into and more invested in the story that was unfolding, I ended up being sucked into the wild ride that the protagonist was going through. I think that the film's success on that front, relies a great deal on the performance of Frank Grillo, so it's just as well he brought his A-game here. For 99% of the movie, Grillo is onscreen, so there is no hiding from the camera in terms of his performance and he nails every second of it. He really manages to make an insanely dangerous situation feel grounded and relatable. The other actors are mostly featured via their voices on the phone, which again makes their performances difficult to deliver, but they all manage it convincingly. I always knew who each person was in relation to each other and what each character's motives were, which isn't always clear in a movie where most characters are only heard on the phone.
The script is decent, but I feel that a lot of the dialogue was ad-libbed, which again adds a natural, more realistic feel to the events that are unfolding. This was a good move by the director and the direction overall is great. There are some fairly odd creative choices made, but all of them are effective and feel worthwhile. The cinematography and sound mixing are implemented effectively and add to the overall urgent tone that the movie is pursuing.
Overall, this is definitely worth a watch. To me, it is like a callback to a 70's action chase thriller, with a modern twist. There is also an element of film noir present and the intense tone will keep you engaged until the end credits. You do need to stick with the film past the fifteen minute mark though. Although the whole thing is only 82 minutes long in it's entirety, it takes while to really suck you in, but once it does, it is a really fun ride worth taking.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
When I first heard about the Stephen King book called Gerald’s Game I was about 16 years old, and it scared the shit out of me! Just the concept and the idea of it happening to you. So I never read the book. In my mind, I had imagined the worst already and did not want to go there.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Nobody (2021) in Movies
Jul 10, 2021
Having been out of the trailer game for a while this one managed to sneak up on me. It looked intriguing enough.
Hutch has a humdrum life. Work, home, sleep, repeat. When that monotony is broken by criminals, his past comes back to mix things up a bit.
This film is short and sweet, I was shocked to come out of the cinema to something that passed for sunlight. At just over an hour and a half it packs an action-filled punch. It does love a montage, which helps its length. I thought I'd get bored of them, but no, each time summed up the scenes well and really gave the non-action great pace to keep up with the actiony bits.
I loved the experience of seeing this in the cinema, the reactions were really entertaining. The air was filled with sharp intakes of breath and winces accompanied by laughter. It was a joyful bit of viewing. (Apart from the three women in front of me, for the second film in a row, who spoke "spoilers" out loud during the screening. They were obvious, and I could see them coming, but that wasn't really the point.)
Bob Odenkirk is one of those actors I recognise, but generally wouldn't be able to identify from anything specific. (Apart from the dad in Little Women.) That for me was worked really well as it's exactly what matched the character, Hutch needs to be forgettably memorable, and the pairing worked really well. His reactions to the violence added that underlying menace that really won me over. And I'm not going to lie, my reaction to my house is the same as his.
Christopher Lloyd was a pleasant surprise in the cast, and I wasn't disappointed with his scenes. Pure ridiculous joy. Could he have done with more to do? Maybe. Was I bothered that he didn't get it? Not really, it just made for a wonderful addition.
Seeing it jump around locations a nice touch, and it used confined spaces particularly well. The bus scene had me ducking and weaving along with the fighting. There were moments though where I wanted to see a little more of what was happening in some of those spaces though. There were some very elaborate setups but we seemed to be left with unanswered questions. The same goes for a couple of the other bits of the film, and while the intrigue sufficed for some, it didn't carry through to all of them.
Nobody proved to be an entertaining action film, John Wick for the "regular" person. It didn't get me so hyped that I was buzzing and couldn't sleep, it got me to the verbalising the action with every gut punch point... and I'm here for it. Can't fault it... apart from it not having more Christopher Lloyd action scenes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/nobody-movie-review.html
Hutch has a humdrum life. Work, home, sleep, repeat. When that monotony is broken by criminals, his past comes back to mix things up a bit.
This film is short and sweet, I was shocked to come out of the cinema to something that passed for sunlight. At just over an hour and a half it packs an action-filled punch. It does love a montage, which helps its length. I thought I'd get bored of them, but no, each time summed up the scenes well and really gave the non-action great pace to keep up with the actiony bits.
I loved the experience of seeing this in the cinema, the reactions were really entertaining. The air was filled with sharp intakes of breath and winces accompanied by laughter. It was a joyful bit of viewing. (Apart from the three women in front of me, for the second film in a row, who spoke "spoilers" out loud during the screening. They were obvious, and I could see them coming, but that wasn't really the point.)
Bob Odenkirk is one of those actors I recognise, but generally wouldn't be able to identify from anything specific. (Apart from the dad in Little Women.) That for me was worked really well as it's exactly what matched the character, Hutch needs to be forgettably memorable, and the pairing worked really well. His reactions to the violence added that underlying menace that really won me over. And I'm not going to lie, my reaction to my house is the same as his.
Christopher Lloyd was a pleasant surprise in the cast, and I wasn't disappointed with his scenes. Pure ridiculous joy. Could he have done with more to do? Maybe. Was I bothered that he didn't get it? Not really, it just made for a wonderful addition.
Seeing it jump around locations a nice touch, and it used confined spaces particularly well. The bus scene had me ducking and weaving along with the fighting. There were moments though where I wanted to see a little more of what was happening in some of those spaces though. There were some very elaborate setups but we seemed to be left with unanswered questions. The same goes for a couple of the other bits of the film, and while the intrigue sufficed for some, it didn't carry through to all of them.
Nobody proved to be an entertaining action film, John Wick for the "regular" person. It didn't get me so hyped that I was buzzing and couldn't sleep, it got me to the verbalising the action with every gut punch point... and I'm here for it. Can't fault it... apart from it not having more Christopher Lloyd action scenes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/nobody-movie-review.html
Amy Norman (1042 KP) rated Ready Player Two in Books
Jul 23, 2022
I didn't want the reviews to be true but unfortunately I feel they were correct. I went into this with an open mind and ready to form my own opinions but alas this time I side with the majority.
***No direct spoilers as such but you may infer some details from what I have said***
I didn't struggle with the referencing and overexplaining that some people felt occurred in the first book but this was something completely different in the sequel.
In the first book, there was passion and a sense of urgency, and it drew you along to a satisfying conclusion. There were specific parts to the book that stood out, and it felt like a fully realised story that could almost happen.
I was really invested in the first book but this time round it was missing something.
Although the stakes were set higher it never felt like there was any real danger. There are some truly dramatic scenes but at no point did I feel like Cline had the heart to go all Game of Thrones on us.
I think Cline overstretched himself with trying to cram in 7 fantastical quests, world's, and puzzles to solve, that all the magic of the first book was completely lost.
He could have made this work well but the sped up timeline forced him into a corner there was no escaping from.
Rushed in places, where fans of the first book would have adored more detail and reveled in it, and then hyper focused and drawn out details of some really odd choices, means this book just falls flat.
There was so much potential here, but it felt like Cline was trying too hard to pay lip service to his peers and people he admires in a Halliday-esqe way, this can be felt if you actually read the acknowledgements. The comparison to Cline and some of the characters becomes quite apparent there, and are almost beyond cliche.
There is still ongoing talk of a movie adaptation for this sequel, and I feel like Cline really leaned into the idea of this (after the success of the first one). As this book would probably work better as a screenplay. I feel like this may be one of those extremely rare occurrences where the movie has the potential to be better than the book.
I often try to leave balanced reviews and can find a positive to end on but I was mostly disappointed by the end of reading, so I am struggling to end on a positive!
How about this?
There is no mention of a part three in the future but I feel like Cline has given himself the opportunity to have a fresh start, if there were to be a Ready Player Three, there are so many avenues he could explore, and bring the magic back! So I am hopeful for the futute.
***No direct spoilers as such but you may infer some details from what I have said***
I didn't struggle with the referencing and overexplaining that some people felt occurred in the first book but this was something completely different in the sequel.
In the first book, there was passion and a sense of urgency, and it drew you along to a satisfying conclusion. There were specific parts to the book that stood out, and it felt like a fully realised story that could almost happen.
I was really invested in the first book but this time round it was missing something.
Although the stakes were set higher it never felt like there was any real danger. There are some truly dramatic scenes but at no point did I feel like Cline had the heart to go all Game of Thrones on us.
I think Cline overstretched himself with trying to cram in 7 fantastical quests, world's, and puzzles to solve, that all the magic of the first book was completely lost.
He could have made this work well but the sped up timeline forced him into a corner there was no escaping from.
Rushed in places, where fans of the first book would have adored more detail and reveled in it, and then hyper focused and drawn out details of some really odd choices, means this book just falls flat.
There was so much potential here, but it felt like Cline was trying too hard to pay lip service to his peers and people he admires in a Halliday-esqe way, this can be felt if you actually read the acknowledgements. The comparison to Cline and some of the characters becomes quite apparent there, and are almost beyond cliche.
There is still ongoing talk of a movie adaptation for this sequel, and I feel like Cline really leaned into the idea of this (after the success of the first one). As this book would probably work better as a screenplay. I feel like this may be one of those extremely rare occurrences where the movie has the potential to be better than the book.
I often try to leave balanced reviews and can find a positive to end on but I was mostly disappointed by the end of reading, so I am struggling to end on a positive!
How about this?
There is no mention of a part three in the future but I feel like Cline has given himself the opportunity to have a fresh start, if there were to be a Ready Player Three, there are so many avenues he could explore, and bring the magic back! So I am hopeful for the futute.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated The Panopticon in Books
May 13, 2017
This is my all time favouurite book.
Jenny Fagan stated in an interview in 2013 that prior to writing the novel The Panopticon (2012) she had one question, ‘is it possible to achieve autonomy?’ Fagan explores this question throughout her novel with the character of Anais Hendrix. I would also suggest that the author is metaphorically exploring whether Scotland can achieve autonomy as an independent nation. Autonomy, in relation to the individual, is self-governance- or being able to decide for oneself
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime in TV
Jul 7, 2020
That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Slime is a 2018 anime series animated by 8-Bit with the light novel written by Fuse. It was directed by Yasuhito Kikuchi, with Atsushi Nakayama as assistant director. Kazuyuki Fudeyasu handled music composition with Ryouma Ebata designing the characters and Takahiro Kishida providing monster designs. The series was Simulcast by both Crunchyroll and Funimation.
Minami Satoru was a 37-year old manga loving, corporate worker until one day his life ended in tragedy. While meeting up with a friend for dinner, he sees a man with a knife run up and shoves his friend out of the way, but is fatally injured and dies. When Satoru regains consciousness, he discovers he has been reborn as a "slime", a famously weak character from video games and now in a different world. Blind, deaf, and weak, things are pretty grim initially but he finds he has some new abilities which he uses to gain both friends and enemies in a whole new world.
This anime is pretty cool. It's an "isekai" anime which means it's set in a different world; and is also a genre of anime that I enjoy. It has a fantasy element too and a variety of different races of characters. This series has quite a bit of "fan service" so it might not be for everyone. Also the main character is pretty "op" (over-powered), so you might not find it as compelling as other anime. I felt that they were able to make the conflict that arises work very well with the storyline and with the introduction of new characters. One thing that I didn't think I was going to like, was how he has abilities similar to a character in a video game and learns more over the series. This wound up being really cool in the way they show him use it and develop his abilities as he uses them against enemies. I really liked the animation and designs of the characters and monsters too.
Minami Satoru was a 37-year old manga loving, corporate worker until one day his life ended in tragedy. While meeting up with a friend for dinner, he sees a man with a knife run up and shoves his friend out of the way, but is fatally injured and dies. When Satoru regains consciousness, he discovers he has been reborn as a "slime", a famously weak character from video games and now in a different world. Blind, deaf, and weak, things are pretty grim initially but he finds he has some new abilities which he uses to gain both friends and enemies in a whole new world.
This anime is pretty cool. It's an "isekai" anime which means it's set in a different world; and is also a genre of anime that I enjoy. It has a fantasy element too and a variety of different races of characters. This series has quite a bit of "fan service" so it might not be for everyone. Also the main character is pretty "op" (over-powered), so you might not find it as compelling as other anime. I felt that they were able to make the conflict that arises work very well with the storyline and with the introduction of new characters. One thing that I didn't think I was going to like, was how he has abilities similar to a character in a video game and learns more over the series. This wound up being really cool in the way they show him use it and develop his abilities as he uses them against enemies. I really liked the animation and designs of the characters and monsters too.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020 (Updated Aug 28, 2020)
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is genuinely wonderful.
Like any good drama, it if course has its somber moments, but the overall atmosphere is so heart warming, it honestly feels like a lovely hug, but one of those lovely hugs that makes you cry because life is hard sometimes.
Growing up in the UK, I never watched Mr Rogers, but was always aware of him, and just how much he meant to a massive number of people. This film is less a biopic, and concentrates firmly one one point of Fred Rogers life, namely when he met Tom Junod (presented here as fictional character Lloyd Vogel), a journalist writing for Esquire and profiling Mr Rogers for a piece on American Heroes.
Lloyd is a cynical person, who doesn't hold much love for his fellow man. This begins to change as he spends more time with Fred, a man who truly sees the good in everyone.
At the same time, Lloyd's estranged father is trying to reconnect with him, forcing him to relive past trauma as he struggles to forgive.
It's all very emotionally charged, but wrapped up neatly in Oscar-baiting packaging.
Tom Hanks as Mr Rogers, and Matthew Rhys as Lloyd are nothing short of excellent. Their chemistry is thoroughly believable. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game here, just as much as he has ever been.
The supporting cast are great as well, especially Susan Kelechi Watson and Chris Cooper.
ABDITN also looks fantastic. The contrast of real life drama to dream like sequences within Mr Rogers' show is an inspired choice by director Marielle Heller, and the use of model cars and cities as segues is effective.
The original score by her brother Nate Heller is just downright pleasant.
Overall, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a decent drama about the importance of family, and what it means to love others, whilst remaining a well written love letter to Feed Rogers himself. It's just a really swell movie, definitely check it out.
Like any good drama, it if course has its somber moments, but the overall atmosphere is so heart warming, it honestly feels like a lovely hug, but one of those lovely hugs that makes you cry because life is hard sometimes.
Growing up in the UK, I never watched Mr Rogers, but was always aware of him, and just how much he meant to a massive number of people. This film is less a biopic, and concentrates firmly one one point of Fred Rogers life, namely when he met Tom Junod (presented here as fictional character Lloyd Vogel), a journalist writing for Esquire and profiling Mr Rogers for a piece on American Heroes.
Lloyd is a cynical person, who doesn't hold much love for his fellow man. This begins to change as he spends more time with Fred, a man who truly sees the good in everyone.
At the same time, Lloyd's estranged father is trying to reconnect with him, forcing him to relive past trauma as he struggles to forgive.
It's all very emotionally charged, but wrapped up neatly in Oscar-baiting packaging.
Tom Hanks as Mr Rogers, and Matthew Rhys as Lloyd are nothing short of excellent. Their chemistry is thoroughly believable. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game here, just as much as he has ever been.
The supporting cast are great as well, especially Susan Kelechi Watson and Chris Cooper.
ABDITN also looks fantastic. The contrast of real life drama to dream like sequences within Mr Rogers' show is an inspired choice by director Marielle Heller, and the use of model cars and cities as segues is effective.
The original score by her brother Nate Heller is just downright pleasant.
Overall, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a decent drama about the importance of family, and what it means to love others, whilst remaining a well written love letter to Feed Rogers himself. It's just a really swell movie, definitely check it out.