Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1444 KP) rated Copper Creek (Sawyer's Ferry #3) in Books
May 7, 2019
such a fun read!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 3 in the Sawyer’s Ferry series. You don’t NEED to have read the other books, but I think you should. Not least because they are 4 and 5 stars from me, but they are really REALLY good!
Frankie is Holden’s best friend. He worked for Holden’s father. When the senior Prescott was arrested, his job went down the pan with the company. Now his cousin needs him out for the new baby, and he has no job. Holden calls him to Alaska to plan his wedding to Gage. In two freaking months! Meeting the mess that is at Cooper Creek brewery send him a little in to panic mode but working with Barrett has its benefits. The man is a magnet to Frankie. Barrett also is attracted to Frankie. But Jackson will leave in two months, and Barrett has to live in Sawyer’s Ferry.
This was a FUN read, but so so good!
Frankie is unique and makes no bones about it. He’s loud, and proud. Barrett, however, is not. Barrett is just trying to keep his business afloat after his assistant left. He can’t manage the business and the paperwork, and he feels like he is drowning in his beer. Frankie walks into his office and Barrett’s life will never be the same again!
What I particularly LOVED about this one was, while Barrett has immediate attraction to Frankie, he doesn’t act on it. And then the news that Barrett had been married, to a woman, comes out. And Barrett is not AT ALL questioning his attraction to Frankie. What he questions is whether he can KEEP Frankie. There is NO, not a single line, about him wondering if he’s gay, or bi, or has been in the closet forever. He just WANTS Frankie, and that Frankie is a man, is totally irrelevant. Loved that!
It is a much lighter read than books one and two, and I loved that it was. Neither Frankie nor Barrett have any deep dark secrets, or major trauma, but Barrett’s wife did leave him. There is no violence, unless you count what Frankie wanted to do to the woman who had been sharing Barrett’s bed in Juneau (is that spelt right?)
It’s sexy, oh yes ma’am it is! Frankie is a Master at the innuendo, and he makes Barrett squirm a lot! But Frankie knows what he wants, he knows what Barrett wants, even if he doesn’t say the words, and Frankie is nothing if not determined!
I loved Frankie’s reaction to Barrett’s declaration of love, I really did. Not gonna say what he does, but it made me laugh so much!
Some stunning scenery described here and why Holden and Gage chooses a bloody BARN over the lighthouse I will never know, (even if it was Logan’s refitted space!) but I loved what Barrett did there in the epilogue.
Are there any more planned? I have the short that comes between one and two to read, and the Christmas special that Holden plans for Gage, but are there any more MAIN books planned?? I hope so! Thoroughly enjoying these stories, and hope they continue!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 3 in the Sawyer’s Ferry series. You don’t NEED to have read the other books, but I think you should. Not least because they are 4 and 5 stars from me, but they are really REALLY good!
Frankie is Holden’s best friend. He worked for Holden’s father. When the senior Prescott was arrested, his job went down the pan with the company. Now his cousin needs him out for the new baby, and he has no job. Holden calls him to Alaska to plan his wedding to Gage. In two freaking months! Meeting the mess that is at Cooper Creek brewery send him a little in to panic mode but working with Barrett has its benefits. The man is a magnet to Frankie. Barrett also is attracted to Frankie. But Jackson will leave in two months, and Barrett has to live in Sawyer’s Ferry.
This was a FUN read, but so so good!
Frankie is unique and makes no bones about it. He’s loud, and proud. Barrett, however, is not. Barrett is just trying to keep his business afloat after his assistant left. He can’t manage the business and the paperwork, and he feels like he is drowning in his beer. Frankie walks into his office and Barrett’s life will never be the same again!
What I particularly LOVED about this one was, while Barrett has immediate attraction to Frankie, he doesn’t act on it. And then the news that Barrett had been married, to a woman, comes out. And Barrett is not AT ALL questioning his attraction to Frankie. What he questions is whether he can KEEP Frankie. There is NO, not a single line, about him wondering if he’s gay, or bi, or has been in the closet forever. He just WANTS Frankie, and that Frankie is a man, is totally irrelevant. Loved that!
It is a much lighter read than books one and two, and I loved that it was. Neither Frankie nor Barrett have any deep dark secrets, or major trauma, but Barrett’s wife did leave him. There is no violence, unless you count what Frankie wanted to do to the woman who had been sharing Barrett’s bed in Juneau (is that spelt right?)
It’s sexy, oh yes ma’am it is! Frankie is a Master at the innuendo, and he makes Barrett squirm a lot! But Frankie knows what he wants, he knows what Barrett wants, even if he doesn’t say the words, and Frankie is nothing if not determined!
I loved Frankie’s reaction to Barrett’s declaration of love, I really did. Not gonna say what he does, but it made me laugh so much!
Some stunning scenery described here and why Holden and Gage chooses a bloody BARN over the lighthouse I will never know, (even if it was Logan’s refitted space!) but I loved what Barrett did there in the epilogue.
Are there any more planned? I have the short that comes between one and two to read, and the Christmas special that Holden plans for Gage, but are there any more MAIN books planned?? I hope so! Thoroughly enjoying these stories, and hope they continue!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Another case of threequel-itis
“At least we can agree the third one is always the worst” barks a young Jean Grey in X-Men: Apocalypse. And whilst the film stays well away from the poor efforts of Spider-Man 3 and The Last Stand, there’s more truth to that statement here than director Bryan Singer would want you to believe.
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
Never Look at the Empty Seats: A Memoir
Book
A tale of hard work, musical discovery, and faith, Charlie Daniels’s journey has been one of a...
Music biography
Debbiereadsbook (1444 KP) rated Bondage Rescue (Kiss of Leather #3) in Books
Apr 24, 2018
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Independent review for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Book 3 in the Kiss of Leather series, and I again STRONGLY recommend you read book one, Building Bonds, and two, Safe Limits first. There are things that happen in those books that you need to know about for this one to make sense.
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Marshall is Kyle's best friend and had disappeared. Calling on Master Josh for help was a last ditch to get the help he needs. Help that comes in the form of the private detective Kiss of Leather's law firm recommends to find the Dom who hurt Corey. Stone hasn't been in any sort of D/s lifestyle for 5 years, since the death of a sub that he was accused of. But meeting Marshall, seeing that young man all haggard looking and far too thin, releases something in Master Stone and he steps up to teach Marshall that true submission really is a beautiful thing.
If you follow you reviews (and I thank you if you do!) you'll know I'm all about the sexy time. I do love my books on the more explicit side, and I make no bones nor apologies for that. What I particularly LOVED about this one, was that Master Stone and Marshall do not get their sexy time til the last TEN MINUTES of their story! I LOVED being made to wait.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Master Stone knows just how to teach Marshall about self worth and he teaches him that punishment does not mean pain, although Marshall a pain-slut. Master Stone rather enjoys teaching the bratty subs, the brattier the better and Marshall just happens to be the most brattiest, stubborn, mouthy sub he has ever come across. And Master Stone, very quickly, makes its very clear that Marshall will have to wait, and wait PATIENTLY to have sex with him. And I LOVED IT!!!
The hunt for Corey's abuser continues, takes a shocking turn. I'm not telling you what though! Cos, you know, SPOILERS and all that! But I will tell you, when all this goes down, Master Stone has the exact same reaction as Master Derek does, and they go after THEIR boys.
Sometimes, in a series, especially when the main couples are very similar (here, big bad Dom and younger smaller guy) they get a little same old/same old. I'm NOT finding that here though. Yes all three Doms are older, and bigger, and yes, all three subs are younger and smaller, but their STORIES are so different! The on-going story arc helps a great deal, and the fact that the guys from the previous books continue to play a HUGE part in future books, too, but it's the SUBS who have the greatest differences and I LOVE that they are all friends.
Up next, are Master Josh and David. While already in a committed relationship, I can't wait to get their story. Because it's the Grand Opening of Kiss of Leather and I have a feeling it is not going to be as plain sailing as it has been and I look forward to being introduced to new characters.
Some reference to drug and alcohol abuse, but not described in any detail.
Loving these!
5 full stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Book 3 in the Kiss of Leather series, and I again STRONGLY recommend you read book one, Building Bonds, and two, Safe Limits first. There are things that happen in those books that you need to know about for this one to make sense.
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Marshall is Kyle's best friend and had disappeared. Calling on Master Josh for help was a last ditch to get the help he needs. Help that comes in the form of the private detective Kiss of Leather's law firm recommends to find the Dom who hurt Corey. Stone hasn't been in any sort of D/s lifestyle for 5 years, since the death of a sub that he was accused of. But meeting Marshall, seeing that young man all haggard looking and far too thin, releases something in Master Stone and he steps up to teach Marshall that true submission really is a beautiful thing.
If you follow you reviews (and I thank you if you do!) you'll know I'm all about the sexy time. I do love my books on the more explicit side, and I make no bones nor apologies for that. What I particularly LOVED about this one, was that Master Stone and Marshall do not get their sexy time til the last TEN MINUTES of their story! I LOVED being made to wait.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Master Stone knows just how to teach Marshall about self worth and he teaches him that punishment does not mean pain, although Marshall a pain-slut. Master Stone rather enjoys teaching the bratty subs, the brattier the better and Marshall just happens to be the most brattiest, stubborn, mouthy sub he has ever come across. And Master Stone, very quickly, makes its very clear that Marshall will have to wait, and wait PATIENTLY to have sex with him. And I LOVED IT!!!
The hunt for Corey's abuser continues, takes a shocking turn. I'm not telling you what though! Cos, you know, SPOILERS and all that! But I will tell you, when all this goes down, Master Stone has the exact same reaction as Master Derek does, and they go after THEIR boys.
Sometimes, in a series, especially when the main couples are very similar (here, big bad Dom and younger smaller guy) they get a little same old/same old. I'm NOT finding that here though. Yes all three Doms are older, and bigger, and yes, all three subs are younger and smaller, but their STORIES are so different! The on-going story arc helps a great deal, and the fact that the guys from the previous books continue to play a HUGE part in future books, too, but it's the SUBS who have the greatest differences and I LOVE that they are all friends.
Up next, are Master Josh and David. While already in a committed relationship, I can't wait to get their story. Because it's the Grand Opening of Kiss of Leather and I have a feeling it is not going to be as plain sailing as it has been and I look forward to being introduced to new characters.
Some reference to drug and alcohol abuse, but not described in any detail.
Loving these!
5 full stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Perfect Death in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have debated with myself over a rating for this, the third in the "DI Luc Callanach" series of Edinburgh police procedurals. While the overall story is definitely a 4 star, verging on 5, certain aspects of the dialogue in this one were a little jarring at times, and the plot hinged on a couple of very out of character decisions on the part of the murderer.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
Debbiereadsbook (1444 KP) rated Finally Letting Go (Infinity #2) in Books
Mar 12, 2018
much MUCH better read than book one!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book two in the Infinity series. I would recommend that you read book one, Worth The Risk, if only to know just how Brandon wrecked Tyler 3 years ago. Not totally necessary, though.
Brandon is so far in the closet, he doesn't even know WHERE he is anymore! Facing up to his father, and NOT going to law school, Brandon now comes face to face with Tyler, and he has to own up to what he did. And he does. Tyler's best friend, Simon, though, won't let Brandon get away with it. But Simon's reaction to meeting Brandon properly again for the first time is MASSIVE and INSTANT, and oh so unexpected. Simon won't, though, be anyone dirty little secret. Brandon has to own up WHO he is before Simon will go down that road.
And my gosh! What a great read! I love characters who, for one reason or another cannot own up to who they really are, who they really want, and Brandon, bless his heart, he fights. He FIGHTS so darn HARD, but Simon will not let up!
And let me tell ya, once Brandon admits to HIMSELF who he is and WHO he wants, that man is all in! And it is spectacular watching both these men fall and fall hard for each other. It is, really, quite beautiful watching these two, it really is.
And I did NOT see that coming at me, no ma'am I did not expect that!! Way to go Brandon!
I said in my review for Worth The Risk that there was some repetition of a couple of phases, and I was worried here, but there was none of that!
I loved that Tyler and Jax play a huge part here, and that Ben, the owner of Infinity plays a part, and his book is laid out, sorta. There is a little bit of a preview for Ben's book, Breaking The Rules, and his book is told in the first person. Now those who follow my reviews will know that's not a great favourite of mine, but because I KNOW this now, it won't be a problem. Can't wait to read it!
A much MUCH better read than book one so...
5 full stars.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book two in the Infinity series. I would recommend that you read book one, Worth The Risk, if only to know just how Brandon wrecked Tyler 3 years ago. Not totally necessary, though.
Brandon is so far in the closet, he doesn't even know WHERE he is anymore! Facing up to his father, and NOT going to law school, Brandon now comes face to face with Tyler, and he has to own up to what he did. And he does. Tyler's best friend, Simon, though, won't let Brandon get away with it. But Simon's reaction to meeting Brandon properly again for the first time is MASSIVE and INSTANT, and oh so unexpected. Simon won't, though, be anyone dirty little secret. Brandon has to own up WHO he is before Simon will go down that road.
And my gosh! What a great read! I love characters who, for one reason or another cannot own up to who they really are, who they really want, and Brandon, bless his heart, he fights. He FIGHTS so darn HARD, but Simon will not let up!
And let me tell ya, once Brandon admits to HIMSELF who he is and WHO he wants, that man is all in! And it is spectacular watching both these men fall and fall hard for each other. It is, really, quite beautiful watching these two, it really is.
And I did NOT see that coming at me, no ma'am I did not expect that!! Way to go Brandon!
I said in my review for Worth The Risk that there was some repetition of a couple of phases, and I was worried here, but there was none of that!
I loved that Tyler and Jax play a huge part here, and that Ben, the owner of Infinity plays a part, and his book is laid out, sorta. There is a little bit of a preview for Ben's book, Breaking The Rules, and his book is told in the first person. Now those who follow my reviews will know that's not a great favourite of mine, but because I KNOW this now, it won't be a problem. Can't wait to read it!
A much MUCH better read than book one so...
5 full stars.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
The Tartan Turban: In Search of Alexander Gardner
Book
'Among the many gripping tales of travel and exploration the tale of Alexander Gardner is surely one...
history
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ok, I'll start by saying that this is one of those films that needs two viewings, not that the second viewing adds anything to it but you do get to appreciate what the film is trying to do. Let me explain.
First off Bloodshot is action/comic book movie of two half's. In the first half we half (well maybe first third) we have Ray Garrison (Vin Diesel) completing his mission, celebrating, getting captured and loosing his wife before being resurrected as Bloodshot and going out on a mission of revenge. All of this has an increasingly comic book feel to it, and so it should, the film is based on one after all. However some scenes feel too comic and the "villain", Martin Axe, feels too over the top, especially when he seems to have had a personality swap the next time we see him. There is a reason for of this reviled by the films mid way plot twist but, on the first watch through the "Psycho Killer" scene distracted me from some of the film. Then we get a plot twist that studio Trigger* would be proud of. I'm sure anyone who has read the original source material knew what was going to happen, but that has always been one of the problems, keeping the mystery for new fans but giving the comic book fans what they want.
As we get to the second half of the film it losses some of t e over the top-ness, or at least substitutes it for a different kind of over the top and does bring you back into the plot of 'Augmented man fights other augmented men' which does give us a good over the top action film.
If you do give Bloodshot a second watch then you do notice some clever little bits, like the entire plot being told to us near the beginning of the film. Although I'm still not sure why the London police car has a machine gun in the back of it.
Over all Bloodshot is a o.k. - Good action film but for no brained augmented human action films I think ' Hobbs and Shaw' did it better, Bloodshot even shares Eiza Gonzales with them.
*Responsible for the anime's Kill la Kill and Gurren Lagann both of which have mid season twists that send the series in different directions.
First off Bloodshot is action/comic book movie of two half's. In the first half we half (well maybe first third) we have Ray Garrison (Vin Diesel) completing his mission, celebrating, getting captured and loosing his wife before being resurrected as Bloodshot and going out on a mission of revenge. All of this has an increasingly comic book feel to it, and so it should, the film is based on one after all. However some scenes feel too comic and the "villain", Martin Axe, feels too over the top, especially when he seems to have had a personality swap the next time we see him. There is a reason for of this reviled by the films mid way plot twist but, on the first watch through the "Psycho Killer" scene distracted me from some of the film. Then we get a plot twist that studio Trigger* would be proud of. I'm sure anyone who has read the original source material knew what was going to happen, but that has always been one of the problems, keeping the mystery for new fans but giving the comic book fans what they want.
As we get to the second half of the film it losses some of t e over the top-ness, or at least substitutes it for a different kind of over the top and does bring you back into the plot of 'Augmented man fights other augmented men' which does give us a good over the top action film.
If you do give Bloodshot a second watch then you do notice some clever little bits, like the entire plot being told to us near the beginning of the film. Although I'm still not sure why the London police car has a machine gun in the back of it.
Over all Bloodshot is a o.k. - Good action film but for no brained augmented human action films I think ' Hobbs and Shaw' did it better, Bloodshot even shares Eiza Gonzales with them.
*Responsible for the anime's Kill la Kill and Gurren Lagann both of which have mid season twists that send the series in different directions.
Whole (Breaking Free #5)
Book
Two broken hearts…one perfect fit. Alpha Morris Danvers likes his quiet life as a paralegal...
M_M Mpreg Omegaverse Romance Dark