Search
Search results
Smart Ride: Transit Directions, Real Time Predictions and Transportation Routes
Navigation and Travel
App
Smart Ride® empowers your commute by providing real-time arrivals and alerts for many major North...
Firefly - Season 1
9.3
Rate It
TV Season
Firefly is an American space western drama television series created by writer and director Joss...
Firefly Serenity Joss Whedon Browncoats TV Series Fox
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Sold to the Werewolf Prince in Books
May 23, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book is very short and has a good thought behind it. Since the world Hannah is now trying to integrate into is all about being kind and polite at all costs, its easy to see why she would have troubles with some of it. If offending someone meant execution, any human would have a problem living there without issue. I think that is the biggest idea I found to be enjoyable in the book. I love the idea of aliens and space travel, but the view point on having to keep your tongue tied to always be able to be kind to someone is what pique my interest. However, its not just your voice and words, its in your actions too. That whole world made sure everyone at all times are kept in a pleasured and blissful state.
At first, I was intrigued on the aliens and the life on their planet, but I found my interest leading me more towards how Hannah explained how Humans act to one another and how its hard to come by people who are naturally kind and respectful. Though the idea of being executed for saying anything in any way that could offend someone is kind of hard to get behind, I also feel like its something we should all strive for anyways. I can see the disadvantages of always being kind and polite as well though. In the book, Hannah had made it clear she was never sure what would offend someone and get her possibly killed and so she kept a lot of questions and thoughts to herself. I can completely understand that. To a degree though, I think keeping unkind things or questions that could be offense to yourself to be a great idea. However, when it comes to asking things about someone's religion or culture, I would think that wouldn't create a lot of offense. After all, we are all curious about something we don't understand or don't know. It did bring up a lot of things that we allow our children to say and do that isn't kind and allows others to feel unworthy or disrespected. For example name calling. In the story Hannah had tried to explain there are ways to say something to make in endearing. She used the term "bookworm". She went on to explain that in school people called her a bookworm to be mean and hurtful, it was an insult, but at home her mother used the term endearingly because Hannah always had her nose in a book. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know this is often a true case. Kids at school can be mean and hurtful if you don't fit in, but sometimes the insults they deal can also be ones of endearment from those we love. An example of this is the label gamer. In schools being a gamer meant you didn't have a ton of friends and often were picked on because you preferred to be at home playing your games than going to parties. However, if your wife is playfully teasing you by calling you a gamer, or uses it as an endearing term, it is not hurtful at all. Isn't it funny how something so silly as a single word used to describe you can have duel purposes; Hurtful and endearing?
I think Hannah's explanation of that was pretty dead on, but that wasn't all she brought up that reminded me of how awful humans can be. She has brought up how possessive humans can be to materials, enough to kill or have a hand in killing someone else for it. This is something we actually see everyday, if we allow ourselves too. People kill other people for money and material objects. People kill animals, and we aren't talking about for food purposes, because they want to or because it will allow them to make money for certain pieces of the animal. They aren't just hurtful, they are lethal to others and their environment. I found myself cringing at how real her words were. I know these things are going on in the world, we all do, but to have it spoken out loud so bluntly makes you wish it would just stop. In the book, Hannah had stated the American Government had stated that aliens had visited and they covered it up. And Prince Tamkin had stated because of human hostile nature, they didn't see why they should bother with the humans. He said most aliens didn't see the humans worth the hassle. That brings me to question if it is possible that this is also true.
Think about it. Let's say this particular book is correct in the fact aliens exist and they gave up trying to communicate with us because of our hostile natures. Always putting ourselves first and anyone, anything else last. It would make sense in a way, don't you think? I know this is a Sci-fi romance book, but at the same time, it does make a lot of sense. Hannah had said we were egotistical and self centered, thinking we had the best technology in the universe and that we can take anything we want and its true. As a race, humans are horrible creatures. That's not to say there aren't good ones out there. Even Hannah had explained that there were groups of people who fought for the Earth and others. Just as there are people in the real world who do that same. So if Wright can have a lot of truth in the book, who is not to say she was able to come up with a reason on why aliens stay away from Earth? Even though the space travel seems still to far for us to know if that was that is a real thing or not, it is still something worth thinking about.
I do have one major compliant about the book. The intercourse scenes. There were a total of three heavily detailed scenes that I don't completely understand. Do not get my wrong, the first scene was to make it so you understood that pleasing the woman in the bedroom was extremely important and it completely proved this case. However, I do not feels that so much needed to be in the book. The story could have used more details on the alien planet and the major city they resided in. I would have loved to know more about it. I would have loved to actually have seen the different communities and wild life. I was disappointed there wasn't more but instead I got steamy intercourse scenes that would make adult movie stars blush.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars. It had brought up a lot of topics to discuss and ponder on and definitely left me wanting more, but the intercourse scenes were over the top and just too much for me. I would have been find with just the first one and maybe shorter scenes for the others. To me it just took away from the story in a way I didn't like.
At first, I was intrigued on the aliens and the life on their planet, but I found my interest leading me more towards how Hannah explained how Humans act to one another and how its hard to come by people who are naturally kind and respectful. Though the idea of being executed for saying anything in any way that could offend someone is kind of hard to get behind, I also feel like its something we should all strive for anyways. I can see the disadvantages of always being kind and polite as well though. In the book, Hannah had made it clear she was never sure what would offend someone and get her possibly killed and so she kept a lot of questions and thoughts to herself. I can completely understand that. To a degree though, I think keeping unkind things or questions that could be offense to yourself to be a great idea. However, when it comes to asking things about someone's religion or culture, I would think that wouldn't create a lot of offense. After all, we are all curious about something we don't understand or don't know. It did bring up a lot of things that we allow our children to say and do that isn't kind and allows others to feel unworthy or disrespected. For example name calling. In the story Hannah had tried to explain there are ways to say something to make in endearing. She used the term "bookworm". She went on to explain that in school people called her a bookworm to be mean and hurtful, it was an insult, but at home her mother used the term endearingly because Hannah always had her nose in a book. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know this is often a true case. Kids at school can be mean and hurtful if you don't fit in, but sometimes the insults they deal can also be ones of endearment from those we love. An example of this is the label gamer. In schools being a gamer meant you didn't have a ton of friends and often were picked on because you preferred to be at home playing your games than going to parties. However, if your wife is playfully teasing you by calling you a gamer, or uses it as an endearing term, it is not hurtful at all. Isn't it funny how something so silly as a single word used to describe you can have duel purposes; Hurtful and endearing?
I think Hannah's explanation of that was pretty dead on, but that wasn't all she brought up that reminded me of how awful humans can be. She has brought up how possessive humans can be to materials, enough to kill or have a hand in killing someone else for it. This is something we actually see everyday, if we allow ourselves too. People kill other people for money and material objects. People kill animals, and we aren't talking about for food purposes, because they want to or because it will allow them to make money for certain pieces of the animal. They aren't just hurtful, they are lethal to others and their environment. I found myself cringing at how real her words were. I know these things are going on in the world, we all do, but to have it spoken out loud so bluntly makes you wish it would just stop. In the book, Hannah had stated the American Government had stated that aliens had visited and they covered it up. And Prince Tamkin had stated because of human hostile nature, they didn't see why they should bother with the humans. He said most aliens didn't see the humans worth the hassle. That brings me to question if it is possible that this is also true.
Think about it. Let's say this particular book is correct in the fact aliens exist and they gave up trying to communicate with us because of our hostile natures. Always putting ourselves first and anyone, anything else last. It would make sense in a way, don't you think? I know this is a Sci-fi romance book, but at the same time, it does make a lot of sense. Hannah had said we were egotistical and self centered, thinking we had the best technology in the universe and that we can take anything we want and its true. As a race, humans are horrible creatures. That's not to say there aren't good ones out there. Even Hannah had explained that there were groups of people who fought for the Earth and others. Just as there are people in the real world who do that same. So if Wright can have a lot of truth in the book, who is not to say she was able to come up with a reason on why aliens stay away from Earth? Even though the space travel seems still to far for us to know if that was that is a real thing or not, it is still something worth thinking about.
I do have one major compliant about the book. The intercourse scenes. There were a total of three heavily detailed scenes that I don't completely understand. Do not get my wrong, the first scene was to make it so you understood that pleasing the woman in the bedroom was extremely important and it completely proved this case. However, I do not feels that so much needed to be in the book. The story could have used more details on the alien planet and the major city they resided in. I would have loved to know more about it. I would have loved to actually have seen the different communities and wild life. I was disappointed there wasn't more but instead I got steamy intercourse scenes that would make adult movie stars blush.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars. It had brought up a lot of topics to discuss and ponder on and definitely left me wanting more, but the intercourse scenes were over the top and just too much for me. I would have been find with just the first one and maybe shorter scenes for the others. To me it just took away from the story in a way I didn't like.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The DUFF (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Disappointingly Generic
The school-set comedy genre has been done to death over the last two decades. From body swap comedies like 17 Again that hang on the pulling power of their stars, to films that now have a cult following like 10 Things I Hate About You, each of them has little to offer once the end credits roll.
With the brilliant Mean Girls being one of the only exceptions to the trend, the latest film to tackle the genre is The DUFF, but is Ari Sandel’s directorial debut worthy of a recommendation?
The DUFF follows daily life at a typical American high-school with typical US teens separated into categories depending on their social standing.
Enter Bianca Piper, played by the brilliant Mae Whitman, a vastly intelligent girl who is unaware of her place in the rankings as the DUFF – Designated Ugly Fat Friend – that is until her hunky next door neighbour Wesley (Robbie Amell) informs her of that fact.
What ensues is a selection of mildly amusing scenes interspersed with some touching social commentary about what it means to be normal in an ever-changing world as Bianca tries to come to terms with her place in the school hierarchy.
Despite the obvious focus on looks and beauty, the film does have a deeper message of self-worth and it’s a shame this is rarely touched upon outside of the finale.
Perhaps The DUFF’s strongest suit is in its unique filming style. The use of technology and social media helps distinguish it from its rivals and what it lacks in story is made up for with clever uses of animation and an engaging soundtrack.
Just when you think the film has decided to settle in a rut and remain there for the duration, it throws you off course with a clever cut-scene or use of technology and there are two moments in particular that had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t that funny. The story is predictable and the will-they-won’t-they romantic subplot is massively clichéd and dull because the characters, apart from Bianca, simply don’t register – there is no reason to care for them.
Mae Whitman is a force to be reckoned with as Bianca and is by far the most intriguing member of a disappointingly bland cast. Elsewhere, Ken Jeong (Community, The Hangover) and Allison Janney (Hairspray) pop up as a concerned teacher and Bianca’s mother, but they are both wasted in ultimately thankless roles.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for films like The DUFF. The school-set genre has fizzled out in recent years and hasn’t got its mojo back despite numerous efforts from movies much less accomplished than this one.
Mae Whitman and the use of Family Guy-esque cut-scenes are the main plus points here, but despite its best intentions, it’s hard to give it too much of a recommendation and is probably best reserved for a late-night DVD viewing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/12/disappointingly-generic-the-duff-review/
With the brilliant Mean Girls being one of the only exceptions to the trend, the latest film to tackle the genre is The DUFF, but is Ari Sandel’s directorial debut worthy of a recommendation?
The DUFF follows daily life at a typical American high-school with typical US teens separated into categories depending on their social standing.
Enter Bianca Piper, played by the brilliant Mae Whitman, a vastly intelligent girl who is unaware of her place in the rankings as the DUFF – Designated Ugly Fat Friend – that is until her hunky next door neighbour Wesley (Robbie Amell) informs her of that fact.
What ensues is a selection of mildly amusing scenes interspersed with some touching social commentary about what it means to be normal in an ever-changing world as Bianca tries to come to terms with her place in the school hierarchy.
Despite the obvious focus on looks and beauty, the film does have a deeper message of self-worth and it’s a shame this is rarely touched upon outside of the finale.
Perhaps The DUFF’s strongest suit is in its unique filming style. The use of technology and social media helps distinguish it from its rivals and what it lacks in story is made up for with clever uses of animation and an engaging soundtrack.
Just when you think the film has decided to settle in a rut and remain there for the duration, it throws you off course with a clever cut-scene or use of technology and there are two moments in particular that had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t that funny. The story is predictable and the will-they-won’t-they romantic subplot is massively clichéd and dull because the characters, apart from Bianca, simply don’t register – there is no reason to care for them.
Mae Whitman is a force to be reckoned with as Bianca and is by far the most intriguing member of a disappointingly bland cast. Elsewhere, Ken Jeong (Community, The Hangover) and Allison Janney (Hairspray) pop up as a concerned teacher and Bianca’s mother, but they are both wasted in ultimately thankless roles.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for films like The DUFF. The school-set genre has fizzled out in recent years and hasn’t got its mojo back despite numerous efforts from movies much less accomplished than this one.
Mae Whitman and the use of Family Guy-esque cut-scenes are the main plus points here, but despite its best intentions, it’s hard to give it too much of a recommendation and is probably best reserved for a late-night DVD viewing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/12/disappointingly-generic-the-duff-review/
Art Authority for iPad
Art & Design, Education and Reference
App
"Best iPad Reference App" -- App Store editorial team. Art Authority for iPad transports you to an...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 26, 2019
Verdict: Pure Fun
Story: Knives Out starts with the apparent suicide of Harlan Thrombey (Plummer) on his 85th birthday, the family Linda (Curtis), Walt (Shannon), Richard (Johnson), Joni (Collette) Meg (Langford), Jacob (Martell) and Ransom (Evans) were all in attendance along with Harlan’s nurse Marta (Armas).
Lieutenant Elliott (Stanfield) lets private investigator Benoit Blanc (Craig) look at the events of the night after he gets an anonymous request to investigate the death believing it was murder, with the whole family have cause to potentially murder.
Thoughts on Knives Out
Characters – Benoit Blanc is a private investigator that has a connection to the family and has been given an anonymous letter to investigate the death, he has his way which unlike the normal police will push the family for the truth, knowing most are lying when they talk to him. Marta Cabrera is the nurse to Harlan, she has the closest relationship to him, knowing most of the family secrets, while just working to make sure her family is secure. Harlan is the self-made millionaire author that has started to get disappointed by the behaviour of his own children. Linda is the eldest daughter who has her own real estate business that she is proud of her work, believing she has done better than the other siblings. Walt is the youngest son who runs the publication of the books, which has always seen him try to push his father into selling the rights to entertainment sources. Richard is the husband to Linda that has been caught by Harlan being forced into telling the truth or being exposed. Joni is the daughter in the law of the deceased son that is an influencer and has been getting an allowance since her husband’s death. Ransom is the black sheep of the family, son of Linda and Richard, he has always lived the life of luxury never having to work on anything himself. Meg is the daughter of Joni that is the closest of any of the younger family members to Marta, she has seen herself be put through school but Harlan. LT Elliott is leading the investigation to the death, he is happy to put it down as suicide, but will let Benoit lead his own investigate.
Performances – The performances here are a pure joy, Daniel Craig gives us a career best, Ana De Armas continues to rise up the Hollywood name list, proving herself with a sweet innocent figure, Chris Evans brings to light a character complete against the type we are used to seeing form him. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson and Toni Collette are wonderful too showing they can become anybody like we know from them. Everybody in this film is wonderful to watch.
Story – The story here follows a private investigator who decides to investigate an apparent suicide where he will dig up the family secrets to learn there might have been foul play. This story is a who-dun-it where everybody could be a suspect as nobody wants to tell the truth and everybody is hiding the truth too. There is a unique way of telling the story that will surprise you and turn the usual flow on its head, almost pointing out just how predictable certain TV shows involving a murder are. We do have plenty to unpack through the story, though there is a slight drag through the middle of the film.
Comedy/Crime/Mystery – The comedy comes from the colourful characters we get to meet and their actions, while the crime mystery mix together to keep us guessing to the complete truth of what happened, we get plenty of references to other crime stories too.
Settings – The film is mostly set on the grounds of the death, we have the luxury mansion, when we stay in this location everything does feel like ‘Clue’ but whether we leave it does take a little bit away from the quirky style.
Scene of the Movie – Ambulance arrives.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We never learn where Marta is from, with the on running joke she is South American, each character claims she is from a different country.
Final Thoughts – This is a quirky joyful comedy that leaves you guessing to the truth with performances that shine throughout the film.
Overall: Entertaining Mystery.
Story: Knives Out starts with the apparent suicide of Harlan Thrombey (Plummer) on his 85th birthday, the family Linda (Curtis), Walt (Shannon), Richard (Johnson), Joni (Collette) Meg (Langford), Jacob (Martell) and Ransom (Evans) were all in attendance along with Harlan’s nurse Marta (Armas).
Lieutenant Elliott (Stanfield) lets private investigator Benoit Blanc (Craig) look at the events of the night after he gets an anonymous request to investigate the death believing it was murder, with the whole family have cause to potentially murder.
Thoughts on Knives Out
Characters – Benoit Blanc is a private investigator that has a connection to the family and has been given an anonymous letter to investigate the death, he has his way which unlike the normal police will push the family for the truth, knowing most are lying when they talk to him. Marta Cabrera is the nurse to Harlan, she has the closest relationship to him, knowing most of the family secrets, while just working to make sure her family is secure. Harlan is the self-made millionaire author that has started to get disappointed by the behaviour of his own children. Linda is the eldest daughter who has her own real estate business that she is proud of her work, believing she has done better than the other siblings. Walt is the youngest son who runs the publication of the books, which has always seen him try to push his father into selling the rights to entertainment sources. Richard is the husband to Linda that has been caught by Harlan being forced into telling the truth or being exposed. Joni is the daughter in the law of the deceased son that is an influencer and has been getting an allowance since her husband’s death. Ransom is the black sheep of the family, son of Linda and Richard, he has always lived the life of luxury never having to work on anything himself. Meg is the daughter of Joni that is the closest of any of the younger family members to Marta, she has seen herself be put through school but Harlan. LT Elliott is leading the investigation to the death, he is happy to put it down as suicide, but will let Benoit lead his own investigate.
Performances – The performances here are a pure joy, Daniel Craig gives us a career best, Ana De Armas continues to rise up the Hollywood name list, proving herself with a sweet innocent figure, Chris Evans brings to light a character complete against the type we are used to seeing form him. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson and Toni Collette are wonderful too showing they can become anybody like we know from them. Everybody in this film is wonderful to watch.
Story – The story here follows a private investigator who decides to investigate an apparent suicide where he will dig up the family secrets to learn there might have been foul play. This story is a who-dun-it where everybody could be a suspect as nobody wants to tell the truth and everybody is hiding the truth too. There is a unique way of telling the story that will surprise you and turn the usual flow on its head, almost pointing out just how predictable certain TV shows involving a murder are. We do have plenty to unpack through the story, though there is a slight drag through the middle of the film.
Comedy/Crime/Mystery – The comedy comes from the colourful characters we get to meet and their actions, while the crime mystery mix together to keep us guessing to the complete truth of what happened, we get plenty of references to other crime stories too.
Settings – The film is mostly set on the grounds of the death, we have the luxury mansion, when we stay in this location everything does feel like ‘Clue’ but whether we leave it does take a little bit away from the quirky style.
Scene of the Movie – Ambulance arrives.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We never learn where Marta is from, with the on running joke she is South American, each character claims she is from a different country.
Final Thoughts – This is a quirky joyful comedy that leaves you guessing to the truth with performances that shine throughout the film.
Overall: Entertaining Mystery.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Annabelle (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Annabelle is the newest demon-based spooky fright film produced by James Wan (producer Saw II-IV & director Insidious 1&2). The trailers would have you believe that it is a prequel to the Conjuring. Well I suppose it is, although a very loose prequel.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
MyNetDiary PRO - Calorie Counter and Food Diary
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
Lose weight and get healthy with the world’s smartest diet app. The app takes care of everything -...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.