Search
Light From The Grave
8.0
Rate It
Book
I’m what nightmares are made of, but I’m not sure who’s more dangerous: him or me. In the...
MM Urban Fantasy Romance
Lost - Season 1
8.5
Rate It
TV Season Watch
Oceanic Air flight 815 tore apart in mid-air and crashed on a Pacific island, leaving 48 passengers...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Don't Breathe (2016) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020 (Updated Feb 22, 2020)
For the most part, Don't Breathe is a really tight gem of a thriller with some decent horror elements throughout.
The movie revolves around three thieves - Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette) and Money (Daniel Zovatto) trying to steal themselves enough valuables to be able to move away from their home city of Detroit.
When they hear about a sizable stash of cash hidden in the house of a blind war veteran (Stephen Lang), they get to work on what they assume will be an easy score. Things go rapidly downhill as it becomes apparent that The Blind Man isn't as helpless as they thought, and they become Tangled in a game of cat and mouse as they try to escape with their lives.
Don't Breathe is an incredibly tense film. It's dimly lit set pieces and it's frequently silent atmosphere are hugely effective. Director Fede Alvarez provides continuously great shots throughout (there's an extended sequence around the mid point which takes place in total darkness which is a particular highlight) and utilizes the small set (95% of the film takes place in The Blind Man's house) fantastically.
The cast are pretty good as well. The three thieves are both likable and dislikable at the appropriate moments, and serve their purpose well. Jane Levy is the stand out of the three, playing the role of 'the final girl' with a satisfying mixture of being terrified, vulnerable, and a strong survivalist all at once.
Stephen Lang is the MVP here though. He steals the show as The Blind Man, and manages to portray a genuinely batshit-scary movie monster, well at the same time, being a tragic and sympathetic characters.
This is one of the main strengths if the whole movie actually. Both The Blind Man and the set of thieves are portrayed as characters we should be siding with at one point or another, and then it will flip it over and give us the reverse one point later. The moral compass of who is to root for is in constant flux, and lends the narrative a unique edge.
My main criticism here though is the films final third. After being a stupidly tense thriller and a fight for survival for an hour, Don't Breathe gets a little silly towards it's climax, and downright gratuitous in parts, (the turkey baster to the face ffs!?).
There's not a huge amount of gore in display, so it doesn't quite fall into torture-porn territory, but the vibe is quite similar, and it tarnishes what is otherwise a pretty decent horror.
Overall though, Don't Breathe is worth a watch if you have any passing interest at all in thrillers or horror. With the news of a sequel in the way, I'm excited to see where the story will go.
The movie revolves around three thieves - Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette) and Money (Daniel Zovatto) trying to steal themselves enough valuables to be able to move away from their home city of Detroit.
When they hear about a sizable stash of cash hidden in the house of a blind war veteran (Stephen Lang), they get to work on what they assume will be an easy score. Things go rapidly downhill as it becomes apparent that The Blind Man isn't as helpless as they thought, and they become Tangled in a game of cat and mouse as they try to escape with their lives.
Don't Breathe is an incredibly tense film. It's dimly lit set pieces and it's frequently silent atmosphere are hugely effective. Director Fede Alvarez provides continuously great shots throughout (there's an extended sequence around the mid point which takes place in total darkness which is a particular highlight) and utilizes the small set (95% of the film takes place in The Blind Man's house) fantastically.
The cast are pretty good as well. The three thieves are both likable and dislikable at the appropriate moments, and serve their purpose well. Jane Levy is the stand out of the three, playing the role of 'the final girl' with a satisfying mixture of being terrified, vulnerable, and a strong survivalist all at once.
Stephen Lang is the MVP here though. He steals the show as The Blind Man, and manages to portray a genuinely batshit-scary movie monster, well at the same time, being a tragic and sympathetic characters.
This is one of the main strengths if the whole movie actually. Both The Blind Man and the set of thieves are portrayed as characters we should be siding with at one point or another, and then it will flip it over and give us the reverse one point later. The moral compass of who is to root for is in constant flux, and lends the narrative a unique edge.
My main criticism here though is the films final third. After being a stupidly tense thriller and a fight for survival for an hour, Don't Breathe gets a little silly towards it's climax, and downright gratuitous in parts, (the turkey baster to the face ffs!?).
There's not a huge amount of gore in display, so it doesn't quite fall into torture-porn territory, but the vibe is quite similar, and it tarnishes what is otherwise a pretty decent horror.
Overall though, Don't Breathe is worth a watch if you have any passing interest at all in thrillers or horror. With the news of a sequel in the way, I'm excited to see where the story will go.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Statham vs Massive Prehistoric Shark
Before I start my review, I think I should add a quick disclaimer. I knew fine well that I wasn’t walking into a Oscar-worthy, perfect film as soon as I booked my ticket for The Meg. With the exception of Jaws, how many shark films have actually been award worthy? We’ve seen a huge boom in shark popularity ranging from plausible to the downright stupid (yes Sharknado, I’m looking at you and your buddies). But despite my already low expectations, I still have a fair amount of criticism for what I saw.
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
ClareR (5726 KP) rated Savage Beasts in Books
Jul 4, 2023
Savage Beasts is a re-imagining of the story of Medea. This time, Meena (not Medea) betrays her father, the Nawab of Bengal, and runs away with an adventurer called James Chilcott. But Meena’s initial feelings of adventure and excitement soon wear off when she realises that the man she took to be an adventurer, was just an opportunist who spends her money and betrays her in turn.
I thought it was really clever how the Greek myth was woven into Meena’s story, and showed the impact of colonialism. Great Britain doesn’t come out of this well. James’ uncle, Sir Peter Chilcott, is a powerful man in the East India Company. He’s cold, unforgiving, and sees Meena, Indians, Bengali’s, and anyone from anywhere foreign, as below him and little better than an animal.
It made for really uncomfortable reading, and made me so angry!
Meena comes across as being so young but desperate to be older. She’s determined to make a good life for herself and her child - despite how difficult James and his reprehensible family make it for her.
Honestly, by the end I firmly believed they deserved whatever was coming their way!
I listened to this on audiobook, kindly sent to me via NetGalley by HarperCollins UK Audio. The narrator, Shazia Nicholls, really was outstanding. It always amazes me how a good narrator can make all the characters sound so different - especially in this case, the men. Sir Peter came across as a sneering, superior, calculating monster, and in contrast, Meena was both young and wise - and it felt as though she was really there, speaking for herself. Shazia read with such emotion that it became entirely believable. This could well have been an historical memoir as much as a piece of fiction.
Yes, this is described as a Greek retelling, but it has been made into something all of its own. If you know the story of Medea, then you’ll see where in particular it is borrowing from that story - but this is a great story in its own right. It’s powerful, feminist and it’s about colonialism. It’s a story about family, trust and the devastation of betrayal.
Highly recommended!
I thought it was really clever how the Greek myth was woven into Meena’s story, and showed the impact of colonialism. Great Britain doesn’t come out of this well. James’ uncle, Sir Peter Chilcott, is a powerful man in the East India Company. He’s cold, unforgiving, and sees Meena, Indians, Bengali’s, and anyone from anywhere foreign, as below him and little better than an animal.
It made for really uncomfortable reading, and made me so angry!
Meena comes across as being so young but desperate to be older. She’s determined to make a good life for herself and her child - despite how difficult James and his reprehensible family make it for her.
Honestly, by the end I firmly believed they deserved whatever was coming their way!
I listened to this on audiobook, kindly sent to me via NetGalley by HarperCollins UK Audio. The narrator, Shazia Nicholls, really was outstanding. It always amazes me how a good narrator can make all the characters sound so different - especially in this case, the men. Sir Peter came across as a sneering, superior, calculating monster, and in contrast, Meena was both young and wise - and it felt as though she was really there, speaking for herself. Shazia read with such emotion that it became entirely believable. This could well have been an historical memoir as much as a piece of fiction.
Yes, this is described as a Greek retelling, but it has been made into something all of its own. If you know the story of Medea, then you’ll see where in particular it is borrowing from that story - but this is a great story in its own right. It’s powerful, feminist and it’s about colonialism. It’s a story about family, trust and the devastation of betrayal.
Highly recommended!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Greedy men + Dinosaurs = Lunch!
I’ve really had a rollercoaster of emotions on this one. As a general fan of dinosaurs running riot, since I saw the brilliant original in 1993, I was pretty disillusioned by the teaser trailer for this one: all over-the-top CGI. But as the lights dimmed and the Universal logo faded to ominous sonar sounds, the hairs stood up again and I thought J.A. Bayona (“A Monster Calls“) *might* deliver something really special here. Ultimately though, I left the theatre disappointed… but only slightly so.
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Quatermass Experiment (2005) in Movies
Sep 14, 2020
The first U.K. Maned mission to space vanishes off course only to return with two two of it's three crew missing and the third unable to communicate. As Professor Quatermass and his team try to find out what happened they discover that they come to realise that the rocket may have returned with more than they first thought.
As remakes go This one is quite good, it follows the same basic script as the original and the modernisation (mostly) works. The film doesn't go for much in the way of monster effects, relying instead on building atmosphere and tension which helps it keep the feel of the original 1955 version. It also helps that the original writer, Nigel Kneale, was also consulted on this remake.
This version of the film does have a very (modern) British feel to it which is mostly from the fact that is was made by the BBC so has actors that have appeared in other BBC sic Fi shows, most noticeably David Tennant and Mark Gatiss.
I do have a couple of problems with this film though, firstly the main set, used though tout the first half of the film does look to much like a,well film set. The hospital ward, MoD offices and press conference room all appear to be in the same building and, in fact in one scene, the camera pans from one room to the next making the whole thing look as if it was set up in a warehouse or large stage, which it probability was for filming but you shouldn't realy notice that in the finished film.
The other issue was some of the costumes. The film seems to be set in time it was filmed (2007) but some of the costumes don't seem to fit. One reporter looks like a 'teddy boy' whilst one looks like she's from the 20's and there's a scene with 80's/90's looking goths (Yes I know there are still goths but the look has changed a bit through the decades, as with most looks).
I can't quite work out if the remake looses anything from the original, in some ways the threat seems bigger but the ending seems less climatic. The final scene takes place in an art gallery instead of a church but this is due to a slight change in some of the symbology in the film (and probably because the BBC have had complainants when they have blown up churches in the past).
The original had scenes that stuck with me ( I was quite young when i first saw it) and I feel that the remake doesn't have this effect, although that could just be my age now. However the remake does up the tension and it does feel that there is more riding on Quatermass' success
Apart from those points the film is good. Fans of the original will recognise it for what it is but new views won't need any knowledge of the original to watch it.
As remakes go This one is quite good, it follows the same basic script as the original and the modernisation (mostly) works. The film doesn't go for much in the way of monster effects, relying instead on building atmosphere and tension which helps it keep the feel of the original 1955 version. It also helps that the original writer, Nigel Kneale, was also consulted on this remake.
This version of the film does have a very (modern) British feel to it which is mostly from the fact that is was made by the BBC so has actors that have appeared in other BBC sic Fi shows, most noticeably David Tennant and Mark Gatiss.
I do have a couple of problems with this film though, firstly the main set, used though tout the first half of the film does look to much like a,well film set. The hospital ward, MoD offices and press conference room all appear to be in the same building and, in fact in one scene, the camera pans from one room to the next making the whole thing look as if it was set up in a warehouse or large stage, which it probability was for filming but you shouldn't realy notice that in the finished film.
The other issue was some of the costumes. The film seems to be set in time it was filmed (2007) but some of the costumes don't seem to fit. One reporter looks like a 'teddy boy' whilst one looks like she's from the 20's and there's a scene with 80's/90's looking goths (Yes I know there are still goths but the look has changed a bit through the decades, as with most looks).
I can't quite work out if the remake looses anything from the original, in some ways the threat seems bigger but the ending seems less climatic. The final scene takes place in an art gallery instead of a church but this is due to a slight change in some of the symbology in the film (and probably because the BBC have had complainants when they have blown up churches in the past).
The original had scenes that stuck with me ( I was quite young when i first saw it) and I feel that the remake doesn't have this effect, although that could just be my age now. However the remake does up the tension and it does feel that there is more riding on Quatermass' success
Apart from those points the film is good. Fans of the original will recognise it for what it is but new views won't need any knowledge of the original to watch it.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated A Clash of Kings (Reissue) in Books
Mar 1, 2018
The end of <i>A Clash of Kings</i> snuck up on me. That's something I hadn't really thought about before, especially with an 874 page monster like this, but it can happen with an ebook. I'm reading along, eager to know what happens next. The chapter ends, I go to the next page, and - <i>Appendix</i>? What do you mean, <i>Appendix</i>! That's nonsense, there's got to be more story here than that! I want to know what comes next, dammit! GIVE ME THE STORY!
As it happens, I can start reading [b:A Storm of Swords|62291|A Storm of Swords (A Song of Ice and Fire, #3)|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1298429990s/62291.jpg|1164465] whenever I like, unlike all those poor folk who read this book when it was first released. I think I might need to stop and read a few other books first, though. I did read today's big announcement regarding [b:A Dance with Dragons|2782553|A Dance with Dragons (A Song of Ice and Fire, #5)|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1301849720s/2782553.jpg|2936175], but there's no way I can stretch the next two volumes out to last through more than two months until book five actually comes out. I'm sure the delay will be worth it, though!
One thing [a:Sam Chupp|11847|Sam Chupp|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1219698183p2/11847.jpg] and I have discussed is Martin's marvelous subtlety with magic. It's only barely there at all throughout <i>A Game of Thrones</i>, and can easily be dismissed by anyone who doesn't have direct experience of it. It grows stronger in <i>A Clash of Kings</i>, but it is still something that just about anyone in the Seven Kingdoms would say belongs in tales for children. Not relying on magic for plot takes more discipline as an author, and holding back as he is says a great deal about Martin's careful pace.
As it happens, I can start reading [b:A Storm of Swords|62291|A Storm of Swords (A Song of Ice and Fire, #3)|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1298429990s/62291.jpg|1164465] whenever I like, unlike all those poor folk who read this book when it was first released. I think I might need to stop and read a few other books first, though. I did read today's big announcement regarding [b:A Dance with Dragons|2782553|A Dance with Dragons (A Song of Ice and Fire, #5)|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1301849720s/2782553.jpg|2936175], but there's no way I can stretch the next two volumes out to last through more than two months until book five actually comes out. I'm sure the delay will be worth it, though!
One thing [a:Sam Chupp|11847|Sam Chupp|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1219698183p2/11847.jpg] and I have discussed is Martin's marvelous subtlety with magic. It's only barely there at all throughout <i>A Game of Thrones</i>, and can easily be dismissed by anyone who doesn't have direct experience of it. It grows stronger in <i>A Clash of Kings</i>, but it is still something that just about anyone in the Seven Kingdoms would say belongs in tales for children. Not relying on magic for plot takes more discipline as an author, and holding back as he is says a great deal about Martin's careful pace.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sound of Metal (2019) in Movies
Apr 13, 2021
Acting by Riz Ahmed, Paul Raci AND Olivia Cooke (2 more)
Wonderful story: show not tell!
Sound design is simply epic
When I was young, I remember being scared to death by an old black and white movie about a woman who went blind.... I remember she was travelling on a bus and the movie simulated the view through her eyes as her vision dimmed and then went black. (I've googled this without joy, so can't place the movie!) I found the concept of suddenly losing one of your key senses to be utterly terrifying. So, I was fully engaged with Ruben's issues in this movie.
I thought the movie was going to be downbeat and depressing. But, both with it's positive portrayal of the deaf community and with the extraordinary ending, I found it to be a wonderfully heart-warming tale.
Positives:
- There is just SOOO much depth to this story: a character torn from his familiar world and struggling to adapt to the changes. It's fundamentally a movie about acceptance of self. The last two minutes of the screen time are momentous: one of the best endings of a movie I can remember in recent memory. A truly religious experience.
- "Sound of Metal" won the BAFTA at the weekend for Sound, and deservedly so. It's another leading character in the film, with the editing deftly weaving between the soundscape that most of us live in and Ruben's perception. Apparently, the sound team used a hyper-sensitive microphone in Ahmed's mouth to pick up the inner noises of his body.
- Both Riz Ahmed and Paul Raci are nominated for Oscars. Simply stunning performances from both of them.
- Although not nominated, I'd lob Olivia Cooke's name into that frame too. It's almost IMPOSSIBLE to see the same actress who played "Pixie" in the body of Lou. It's a transformation akin to Charlize Theron's in "Monster". (In fact, it took me until the Paris scenes to actually recognize her!)
- Director Darius Marder - IN HIS DIRECTORIAL FEATURE DEBUT! - delivers a fabulous example of "show not tell". All of the detail is present in the film to tell the story if you look for it. You don't need dialogue to give Lou's backstory: just a casual shot of her lower arm is enough.
Negatives:
- It's a VERY minor quibble but, with a 2 hour running length, the Paris scenes dragged just a little for me. I might have chosen to do a few nips and tucks there in the 'party' scenes. But I wouldn't have wanted to lose much.
"Sound of Metal" has - I'm sure - a guaranteed slot in my Films of the Year list. Simply stunning and highly recommended, this is currently showing in the UK on Amazon Prime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/13/sound-of-metal-dont-ignore-that-ear-bud-volume-warning-on-your-phone-kids/ )
I thought the movie was going to be downbeat and depressing. But, both with it's positive portrayal of the deaf community and with the extraordinary ending, I found it to be a wonderfully heart-warming tale.
Positives:
- There is just SOOO much depth to this story: a character torn from his familiar world and struggling to adapt to the changes. It's fundamentally a movie about acceptance of self. The last two minutes of the screen time are momentous: one of the best endings of a movie I can remember in recent memory. A truly religious experience.
- "Sound of Metal" won the BAFTA at the weekend for Sound, and deservedly so. It's another leading character in the film, with the editing deftly weaving between the soundscape that most of us live in and Ruben's perception. Apparently, the sound team used a hyper-sensitive microphone in Ahmed's mouth to pick up the inner noises of his body.
- Both Riz Ahmed and Paul Raci are nominated for Oscars. Simply stunning performances from both of them.
- Although not nominated, I'd lob Olivia Cooke's name into that frame too. It's almost IMPOSSIBLE to see the same actress who played "Pixie" in the body of Lou. It's a transformation akin to Charlize Theron's in "Monster". (In fact, it took me until the Paris scenes to actually recognize her!)
- Director Darius Marder - IN HIS DIRECTORIAL FEATURE DEBUT! - delivers a fabulous example of "show not tell". All of the detail is present in the film to tell the story if you look for it. You don't need dialogue to give Lou's backstory: just a casual shot of her lower arm is enough.
Negatives:
- It's a VERY minor quibble but, with a 2 hour running length, the Paris scenes dragged just a little for me. I might have chosen to do a few nips and tucks there in the 'party' scenes. But I wouldn't have wanted to lose much.
"Sound of Metal" has - I'm sure - a guaranteed slot in my Films of the Year list. Simply stunning and highly recommended, this is currently showing in the UK on Amazon Prime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/13/sound-of-metal-dont-ignore-that-ear-bud-volume-warning-on-your-phone-kids/ )
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Killer of Enemies (Killer of Enemies, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/2015/07/review-killer-of-enemies-by-joseph-bruchac.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I never thought I would ever come across a book that dumps information on you AND like it.
With a post-apocalyptic world where people are ruled over genetically modified people who are barely human anymore, Joseph Bruchac has obviously planned this book very well and vividly, even with the amount of information he dumps on you for most of the book. I find that the information dump actually goes very well with the amount of action there is. Take away all of the information, and you'll be left with an empty husk of a book that is just full of nonstop action, which would definitely backfire big time on the author because it would be pretty undeveloped.
Bruchac is very detail-oriented throughout the book it's not just the information being dumped. Lozen, our main character who is a monster hunter for the genetically modified people ruling over her home, apparently goes into excruciating detail about some things, such as talking about someone's body odor or eating a monster's heart (that was gross).
Killer of Enemies also promotes diversity in the young adult genre Lozen is a Native American, and I can honestly say I have never had a Native American in any book I've read so far until now. There are hints of Native American traditions and culture woven throughout, and I find that it's probably one of the reasons why I actually enjoyed this a lot more than I would have without the Native American aspect.
Despite how awesome and diverse Killer of Enemies, there were just some things that knocked down some points. Throughout the information dumping, I don't think Bruchac actually mentions why or how the four rulers of Haven actually got their names. The Dreamer and Lady Time make sense, but the Jester doesn't really make sense, and Diablita Loca (how do you even say that?) makes no sense whatsoever.
There also doesn't seem to be a purpose, and while there does seem to be one, I just can't really tell at all. The entire book is pretty much described in less than ten words: hunting weird monsters, telling stories, flashbacks, and information dump.
I did, however, like how Bruchac ends Killer of Enemies by saying something along the lines of, "Just because this story is over doesn't mean everything is now peachy and happily ever after. It's just uncertain, but right now, everything is great."
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/2015/07/review-killer-of-enemies-by-joseph-bruchac.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I never thought I would ever come across a book that dumps information on you AND like it.
With a post-apocalyptic world where people are ruled over genetically modified people who are barely human anymore, Joseph Bruchac has obviously planned this book very well and vividly, even with the amount of information he dumps on you for most of the book. I find that the information dump actually goes very well with the amount of action there is. Take away all of the information, and you'll be left with an empty husk of a book that is just full of nonstop action, which would definitely backfire big time on the author because it would be pretty undeveloped.
Bruchac is very detail-oriented throughout the book it's not just the information being dumped. Lozen, our main character who is a monster hunter for the genetically modified people ruling over her home, apparently goes into excruciating detail about some things, such as talking about someone's body odor or eating a monster's heart (that was gross).
Killer of Enemies also promotes diversity in the young adult genre Lozen is a Native American, and I can honestly say I have never had a Native American in any book I've read so far until now. There are hints of Native American traditions and culture woven throughout, and I find that it's probably one of the reasons why I actually enjoyed this a lot more than I would have without the Native American aspect.
Despite how awesome and diverse Killer of Enemies, there were just some things that knocked down some points. Throughout the information dumping, I don't think Bruchac actually mentions why or how the four rulers of Haven actually got their names. The Dreamer and Lady Time make sense, but the Jester doesn't really make sense, and Diablita Loca (how do you even say that?) makes no sense whatsoever.
There also doesn't seem to be a purpose, and while there does seem to be one, I just can't really tell at all. The entire book is pretty much described in less than ten words: hunting weird monsters, telling stories, flashbacks, and information dump.
I did, however, like how Bruchac ends Killer of Enemies by saying something along the lines of, "Just because this story is over doesn't mean everything is now peachy and happily ever after. It's just uncertain, but right now, everything is great."