Search
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Graveyard Book in Books
Sep 30, 2019
A different look at ghosts (1 more)
Flow of writing is great
Questions left unanswered (1 more)
There won't be a sequel
Neil Gaiman knows how to turn an innocent childhood into a terror-filled one. 'The Graveyard Book' revolves around a young boy named Nobody Owens. What makes him different from everyone else is that he lives in a graveyard where he's being raised by the ghostly residents. Nobody, or Bod (as his friends call him), ended up here after his family was brutally murdered, which actually doesn't seem to bother him too much throughout the story. Right from the beginning, readers get to follow the murderer as he makes his way through Bod's house, killing all the members of the family except for Bod, who fortunately manages to get away.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Never Look at the Empty Seats: A Memoir
Book
A tale of hard work, musical discovery, and faith, Charlie Daniels’s journey has been one of a...
Music biography
Baby Monitor Duo (VoIP)
Lifestyle and Health & Fitness
App
Now with live video streaming! All you need are TWO iOS-devices – iPhone / iPad / iPad Touch –...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated You Were Never Really Here (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Joachim Phoenix delivers a standout performance in a violent tale of crusading.
Joachim Phoenix (“Her”) is a very intense actor, and fits perfectly here into the role of Joe. For he is a hired thug, available to do over anyone you think deserves dispatching or giving a good telling off. His weapon of choice for this task is a ball-point hammer, bought each time from a local hardware shop. He is a ghost, who drifts in and out of his jobs, face concealed by a hoodie and emanating an air of menace that automatically deflects enquiring eyes.
When hired by a Senator (Alex Manette) to rescue his wayward daughter Nina (Ekaterina Samsonov) from the clutches of a paedophile gang, Joe delivers on the job with gusto, and – you sense – a degree of satisfaction. But then things go from bad to violent worse and Joe is drawn into a deadly high stakes game. As things get more and more personal, Joe embarks on a personal crusade for justice and retribution.
The real joy of this film is that Joe is such a nuanced character. Yes, he’s a brutal thug, but is still living with and loving his aged and demented mother (Judith Roberts), even though she drives him to distraction. He’s also clearly damaged himself, with a high degree of OCD behavior exhibited. Via clever flashbacks, we get hints to the route that led the boy to become this damaged man. As a sociopath, when things go wrong he could just say “F*** it” and walk away. But he doesn’t. Is this altruism? A sense of professional pride? Or is it the sight of a path to redemption? Although you could strongly argue that revenge kicks in to reinforce his decision, Lynne Ramsay‘s screenplay leaves things deliciously vague. Ramsey also directs expertly: she previously did 2011’s “We Need To Talk About Kevin”.
“I don’t like gory films” you might say “so this doesn’t sound like one for me”. Me neither, but actually, the trailer makes the film seem worse than it is. The violence is more alluded to than shown. Most of the “hammer action” is done either in long shot or seen on CCTV cameras, and you don’t get to see much of the outcome. There is only one really gory bit that I remember (shut your eyes where Phoenix answers the knock at the hotel door if you are squeamish!).
This doesn’t mean that it’s a comfortable watch though. It’s an insanely tense film since you’re not sure the direction it will go in next (think “Get Out”), and it has more than its fair share of “WTF” moments, especially in a dramatic closing scene. There are some memorable cinematic moments as well: a young girl in a nightie in the paedophile den blankly observing Joe’s handiwork being one that stays with you.
It’s a standout film, winning Best Actor (for Phoenix) and best screenplay (for Ramsey) at Cannes. It will be in a strong position to make my films of the year list. Highly recommended.
When hired by a Senator (Alex Manette) to rescue his wayward daughter Nina (Ekaterina Samsonov) from the clutches of a paedophile gang, Joe delivers on the job with gusto, and – you sense – a degree of satisfaction. But then things go from bad to violent worse and Joe is drawn into a deadly high stakes game. As things get more and more personal, Joe embarks on a personal crusade for justice and retribution.
The real joy of this film is that Joe is such a nuanced character. Yes, he’s a brutal thug, but is still living with and loving his aged and demented mother (Judith Roberts), even though she drives him to distraction. He’s also clearly damaged himself, with a high degree of OCD behavior exhibited. Via clever flashbacks, we get hints to the route that led the boy to become this damaged man. As a sociopath, when things go wrong he could just say “F*** it” and walk away. But he doesn’t. Is this altruism? A sense of professional pride? Or is it the sight of a path to redemption? Although you could strongly argue that revenge kicks in to reinforce his decision, Lynne Ramsay‘s screenplay leaves things deliciously vague. Ramsey also directs expertly: she previously did 2011’s “We Need To Talk About Kevin”.
“I don’t like gory films” you might say “so this doesn’t sound like one for me”. Me neither, but actually, the trailer makes the film seem worse than it is. The violence is more alluded to than shown. Most of the “hammer action” is done either in long shot or seen on CCTV cameras, and you don’t get to see much of the outcome. There is only one really gory bit that I remember (shut your eyes where Phoenix answers the knock at the hotel door if you are squeamish!).
This doesn’t mean that it’s a comfortable watch though. It’s an insanely tense film since you’re not sure the direction it will go in next (think “Get Out”), and it has more than its fair share of “WTF” moments, especially in a dramatic closing scene. There are some memorable cinematic moments as well: a young girl in a nightie in the paedophile den blankly observing Joe’s handiwork being one that stays with you.
It’s a standout film, winning Best Actor (for Phoenix) and best screenplay (for Ramsey) at Cannes. It will be in a strong position to make my films of the year list. Highly recommended.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Turn of the Screw in Books
Mar 24, 2020 (Updated Mar 24, 2020)
Well written (1 more)
Ahead of its time
Overly descriptive (1 more)
Vague
The ghost stories of the Victorian era are full of scares and mysteries- - - from the karma-ridden future, past and present ghosts of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to the comedic ghost story by Oscar Wilde called 'the Canterville Ghost." But among all of them, Henry James found another subject to add to the pot in the novella 'the Turn of the Screw.'
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
Great Introspection On What it Means to Be Human
Thirty years after the events of the first movie, Blade Runner 2049 follows the story of replicant K (Ryan Gosling) who unearths a secret that could rock the world to its core. I remember watching this for the first time and scoring it high 90’s. While I still think it’s a damn good movie, I feel it falls just out of Masterpiece range.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Writing (3 more)
Characters
Inconsistencies
Not a horror book, as marketed
What if a powerful virus was released in the air? What if you had to be tested for it every time you tried to walk into a building? Does this sound a little familiar? What if I told you this scenario was written about back in 2010?
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
Carma (21 KP) rated My Best Friend's Mardi Gras Wedding (Boys of the Bayou, #1) in Books
Jun 17, 2019
I have never wanted to move to Louisiana, ever. The bugs, the swamps, the heat and humidity, ugh. But after reading this latest installment by Ms Nicholas, I may just have to pack my bags and head south. Ohhhweeee this is a scorcher.
Tori was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras last year, her first vacation in a very long time. While in town she went to a bar where she met Josh. Josh was a typical southern boy, sweet talking, flirt that knew his way around a woman. Thinking his interest in her was just a game he was playing made flirting with him easy as she knew it would go no where, but it was too quick to have these kinds of feelings right? When he suggests meeting back in the same spot in one year if they were both still interested, to show her it wasnt just about a one-night stand, she accepts. Now it is Mardi Gras one year later and she is in town for her best friend Andrews wedding. Should she expose herself and see if he shows?
Josh has been mooning over Tori for a year and is making his way to the bar he worked at last year to see if she shows. He hopes she shows up, she has to, there is no other option. Making his way down Bourbon Street is another story though. At this rate he is going to use up his whole break just making it the few short blocks he needs to walk. Please be there!!!
Tori heads to the bar, with her Mardi Gras mask in place and sees who she thinks is Josh also with a mask on. He sees her and heads her way, calling out to her just before she kisses him. But wait, the kiss though familiar isnt the spark fire kiss that Josh gave her last year. She pulls back to find Andrew under the mask. After apologizing and explaining who she was looking for she finds out the Josh doesnt work there anymore but the let her know where she can find him. She heads out the next day to see if he is still interested in her.
Josh never imagined Tori would come looking for him after she failed to show up at the bar last night. When she arrives at his business he realizes she did show but they missed each other. He also learns about the mistaken kiss and why she is really in town. He doesnt care either way, he is just beyond the moon that Tori is back. He will do whatever it takes to make sure she never goes back to Iowa again.
Tori is used to being handled by Andrew, she tends to be irrational and embarrassing (well at least according to Andrew and her father) so when he tries to reign her in she goes along with it. Knowing Paisley (Andrews fiancé) has it in for her as well thinking she is secretly in love with Andrew isnt helping the situation at all. I wont go in to too much with Paisley and Andrew but I wanted to jump in the book and punch them both. Andrew preys on Toris vulnerability and makes her doubt herself constantly throughout the book. Josh knows he will need to make a big declaration to get Tori to just be herself and accept him and the life he wants to give her.
This book starts a new series, Boys of the Bayou which spins off from Boys of the Big Easy. You do not have to read these books in any order, they are good as standalones but there are character overlaps and some back stories mentioned that if you like to keep things in chronological order may irk you if read out of order. Once again the author give me a 5 star book to consume in rapid fashion. There are so many laugh out loud and real life moments in this book I couldnt even start listing them or this review would be 10 pages long. Just know that the secondary characters are all hysterical and I would love to follow them around in real life 24/7/365. I voluntarily read and advance reader copy without expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are my own. You are doing yourself a great disservice by not adding this to your bookshelf, ebook or however you get your next great reads in your hands. Go, go now, go quickly and enjoy.
Tori was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras last year, her first vacation in a very long time. While in town she went to a bar where she met Josh. Josh was a typical southern boy, sweet talking, flirt that knew his way around a woman. Thinking his interest in her was just a game he was playing made flirting with him easy as she knew it would go no where, but it was too quick to have these kinds of feelings right? When he suggests meeting back in the same spot in one year if they were both still interested, to show her it wasnt just about a one-night stand, she accepts. Now it is Mardi Gras one year later and she is in town for her best friend Andrews wedding. Should she expose herself and see if he shows?
Josh has been mooning over Tori for a year and is making his way to the bar he worked at last year to see if she shows. He hopes she shows up, she has to, there is no other option. Making his way down Bourbon Street is another story though. At this rate he is going to use up his whole break just making it the few short blocks he needs to walk. Please be there!!!
Tori heads to the bar, with her Mardi Gras mask in place and sees who she thinks is Josh also with a mask on. He sees her and heads her way, calling out to her just before she kisses him. But wait, the kiss though familiar isnt the spark fire kiss that Josh gave her last year. She pulls back to find Andrew under the mask. After apologizing and explaining who she was looking for she finds out the Josh doesnt work there anymore but the let her know where she can find him. She heads out the next day to see if he is still interested in her.
Josh never imagined Tori would come looking for him after she failed to show up at the bar last night. When she arrives at his business he realizes she did show but they missed each other. He also learns about the mistaken kiss and why she is really in town. He doesnt care either way, he is just beyond the moon that Tori is back. He will do whatever it takes to make sure she never goes back to Iowa again.
Tori is used to being handled by Andrew, she tends to be irrational and embarrassing (well at least according to Andrew and her father) so when he tries to reign her in she goes along with it. Knowing Paisley (Andrews fiancé) has it in for her as well thinking she is secretly in love with Andrew isnt helping the situation at all. I wont go in to too much with Paisley and Andrew but I wanted to jump in the book and punch them both. Andrew preys on Toris vulnerability and makes her doubt herself constantly throughout the book. Josh knows he will need to make a big declaration to get Tori to just be herself and accept him and the life he wants to give her.
This book starts a new series, Boys of the Bayou which spins off from Boys of the Big Easy. You do not have to read these books in any order, they are good as standalones but there are character overlaps and some back stories mentioned that if you like to keep things in chronological order may irk you if read out of order. Once again the author give me a 5 star book to consume in rapid fashion. There are so many laugh out loud and real life moments in this book I couldnt even start listing them or this review would be 10 pages long. Just know that the secondary characters are all hysterical and I would love to follow them around in real life 24/7/365. I voluntarily read and advance reader copy without expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are my own. You are doing yourself a great disservice by not adding this to your bookshelf, ebook or however you get your next great reads in your hands. Go, go now, go quickly and enjoy.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been 84 years... Well, not quite but that long, but near enough.
Dani wakes in a facility, chained to a bed with no clue how she got there after a disaster that devastated her home. She soon meets four other patients, all teens with mutant powers that have been gathered to learn how to control their powers so they can safely join others like them in another facility. But with Dani's arrival, everyone is about to learn what real nightmares are made of.
I sat and stared at this blank space for a while, I have been looking forward to New Mutants for so long and I've been contemplating if that anticipation has affected my enjoyment of it now that I've finally seen it... sadly, I don't think it did.
The promise that this film had in the trailer was pretty big, it looked much darker, a lot scarier, and I was excited for such a big diversion from what we're used to. Yes, the final product was definitely different but, as always, the trailer oversells aspects that aren't really representative of the completed film.
Watching New Mutants was very familiar. There's a certain amount of X-Men/mutant recognition, but there's also touches of Glass (unfortunate considering NM was scheduled for release before it originally) and Runaways. Without a bigger hook in the story it started to feel like an ironing film... something you put on while you have other things to do. Even with all new material it lacked any punch to give it some thrill.
The film is very much an origin story for these characters rather than something in its own right. Similar to Birds Of Prey you've got a lot of new people to meet and learn about, but in BoP this is done with a traditional base story and the characters on top and here everything is new... powers, characters, environments... that excess of new information is not quite as cohesive. In the hospital environment they're all understandably at odds with the doctor and each other, but that seems to change at the drop of a hat for no logical reason.
Out of everyone I was only really impressed with Henry Zaga's portrayal of Roberto da Costa, that was probably because of the humour in his role that broke the seriousness of everything around him. There were solid dramatic moments from him too but the role of Berto did suffer a knock with one of my other issues, and that was the seemingly shoehorned sex. We get it, teens are horny in films, but why was it necessary at all? Berto's storyline could easily have been adapted into something different and Rahne's backstory seems to have been twisted slightly to include it when there was a perfectly good story there already.
I'm not massively familiar with these characters outside of the film, Berto/Sunspot was in Days Of Future Past but I didn't realise this connection until afterwards. I thought it was a shame that there wasn't really a crossover with the rest of the universe when there were opportunities all over the place. Rahne is connected to Moira MacTaggert, Sam has mutant siblings, Illyana is Colossus' sister and the Essex Corporation is likely the same company that ran the orphanage in Deadpool 2... yet the only mentions of the outside universe are thrown in and felt like they were added without much thought and only because we'd expect them to say something about it.
I'm sorry, at this point my rant is just flowing... stay with me a little longer.
What New Mutants felt like it was missing was a villain, which is odd when there are so many bad guys. You have Essex Corp, but there's not enough about them to be anything more than a thought for the future. We're then left with the inner demons from Dani's mutant power, but they're technically undefeatable because they're a creation... so this just makes the film a bonding exercise between the five of them. Something to contemplate though... if they're experiencing their own demons because of Dani's power then how is it that Illyana's smileys go for Berto and Sam when she isn't there? Surely they should vanish when she does? I'm going to have to do more reading about this team, if you know about them then please do give me a crash course.
There are still some good effects and the idea of a darker tone to the universe has a lot of potential, but let's face it, we're never likely to see it again... though the end of the film would like you to believe otherwise with its walk off into the sunset-esque moment. They went full Artemis Fowl with us and lined up a sequel... we're not getting a sequel out of that no matter how much potential they have in the wings... surely?
I still vaguely enjoyed watching New Mutants, if I had my Unlimited Card I would be seeing it again, I wouldn't even have minded getting this as a VOD title because I would have got a few viewings in for my money... but let's face it, this felt more like a double length feature at the start of a new TV series than a film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-new-mutants-movie-review-spoilers.html
Dani wakes in a facility, chained to a bed with no clue how she got there after a disaster that devastated her home. She soon meets four other patients, all teens with mutant powers that have been gathered to learn how to control their powers so they can safely join others like them in another facility. But with Dani's arrival, everyone is about to learn what real nightmares are made of.
I sat and stared at this blank space for a while, I have been looking forward to New Mutants for so long and I've been contemplating if that anticipation has affected my enjoyment of it now that I've finally seen it... sadly, I don't think it did.
The promise that this film had in the trailer was pretty big, it looked much darker, a lot scarier, and I was excited for such a big diversion from what we're used to. Yes, the final product was definitely different but, as always, the trailer oversells aspects that aren't really representative of the completed film.
Watching New Mutants was very familiar. There's a certain amount of X-Men/mutant recognition, but there's also touches of Glass (unfortunate considering NM was scheduled for release before it originally) and Runaways. Without a bigger hook in the story it started to feel like an ironing film... something you put on while you have other things to do. Even with all new material it lacked any punch to give it some thrill.
The film is very much an origin story for these characters rather than something in its own right. Similar to Birds Of Prey you've got a lot of new people to meet and learn about, but in BoP this is done with a traditional base story and the characters on top and here everything is new... powers, characters, environments... that excess of new information is not quite as cohesive. In the hospital environment they're all understandably at odds with the doctor and each other, but that seems to change at the drop of a hat for no logical reason.
Out of everyone I was only really impressed with Henry Zaga's portrayal of Roberto da Costa, that was probably because of the humour in his role that broke the seriousness of everything around him. There were solid dramatic moments from him too but the role of Berto did suffer a knock with one of my other issues, and that was the seemingly shoehorned sex. We get it, teens are horny in films, but why was it necessary at all? Berto's storyline could easily have been adapted into something different and Rahne's backstory seems to have been twisted slightly to include it when there was a perfectly good story there already.
I'm not massively familiar with these characters outside of the film, Berto/Sunspot was in Days Of Future Past but I didn't realise this connection until afterwards. I thought it was a shame that there wasn't really a crossover with the rest of the universe when there were opportunities all over the place. Rahne is connected to Moira MacTaggert, Sam has mutant siblings, Illyana is Colossus' sister and the Essex Corporation is likely the same company that ran the orphanage in Deadpool 2... yet the only mentions of the outside universe are thrown in and felt like they were added without much thought and only because we'd expect them to say something about it.
I'm sorry, at this point my rant is just flowing... stay with me a little longer.
What New Mutants felt like it was missing was a villain, which is odd when there are so many bad guys. You have Essex Corp, but there's not enough about them to be anything more than a thought for the future. We're then left with the inner demons from Dani's mutant power, but they're technically undefeatable because they're a creation... so this just makes the film a bonding exercise between the five of them. Something to contemplate though... if they're experiencing their own demons because of Dani's power then how is it that Illyana's smileys go for Berto and Sam when she isn't there? Surely they should vanish when she does? I'm going to have to do more reading about this team, if you know about them then please do give me a crash course.
There are still some good effects and the idea of a darker tone to the universe has a lot of potential, but let's face it, we're never likely to see it again... though the end of the film would like you to believe otherwise with its walk off into the sunset-esque moment. They went full Artemis Fowl with us and lined up a sequel... we're not getting a sequel out of that no matter how much potential they have in the wings... surely?
I still vaguely enjoyed watching New Mutants, if I had my Unlimited Card I would be seeing it again, I wouldn't even have minded getting this as a VOD title because I would have got a few viewings in for my money... but let's face it, this felt more like a double length feature at the start of a new TV series than a film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-new-mutants-movie-review-spoilers.html