Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated #murdertrending in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><strong>I don't know if this is something related to psychology, but <em>#Murdertrending</em> is both creepy and engrossing at the same time.</strong></h2>
I found myself reading this quicker than I normally would have (if we're not counting the days I procrastinated), and while I should have turned away from this book in horror instantly, I didn't. Maybe that says something about me or human nature in general. 🙈
<h3><em>#Murdertrending</em> gives off <em>Hunger Games</em> vibes</h3>
We have Dee Guerrera, a girl who is supposedly guilty of murdering her stepsister and is sent to Alcatraz 2.0, a prison for those who are convicted of murdering someone. <strong>The entire prison is full of killers, and they never know when they'll be the next person whose murder will be publicized for all to see.</strong> It's <em>Hunger Games</em> without fighting amongst the inmates, or rather capital punishment for the entertainment of millions of people.
(And Death Row Breakfast Club, which is a fitting name for Dee and her friends.)
<h3>I can't tell if I'm disappointed in the last few scenes.</h3>
<em>#Murdertrending</em> gave off that video game vibe sometimes - Press X and get a reagent! - as Dee found herself facing off against the government-sanctioned killers who are in charge of killing the inmates one by one. Fortunately for Dee and the reader's cruel enjoyment, she still has some obstacles in her way.
<h3>To be honest, this felt tied to current politics in the US</h3>
Maybe this is me being very critical and overthinking, but McNeil's latest book felt really relevant to what is currently going on today (added on with the social media snippets). Only this one is more fictionalized and brutal with a lot more death and blood. And heads rolling, among other disturbing things.
<h3><em>#Murdertrending</em> is very plot-driven</h3>
If you're looking for character development, there won't be much of it. McNeil's latest novel is plot-driven to the core, fast-paced and action-packed.
<h3>That ending though...</h3>
I did NOT see that coming - I mean, I <em>should</em> have, but I didn't. McNeil kept me distracted from what was really going on in the story - there is so much going on that I didn't focus on being a step ahead and putting it all together before the story came together on its own.
<h3>This smells of a sequel?!?!?!</h3>
I have no clue if this is true or not (sounds like it is according to various sources and Google searches), but I am all for a sequel if it happens since I am immensely curious about what happens to the characters who survive the first novel. (Do I sound like a horrible person now?)
<h2><em><strong>#Murdertrending</strong></em><strong> is deliciously dark and twisted - it's very plot-driven and action-packed that will keep you turning the pages despite how gross it may make you feel.</strong></h2>
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/murdertrending-by-gretchen-mcneil/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>I don't know if this is something related to psychology, but <em>#Murdertrending</em> is both creepy and engrossing at the same time.</strong></h2>
I found myself reading this quicker than I normally would have (if we're not counting the days I procrastinated), and while I should have turned away from this book in horror instantly, I didn't. Maybe that says something about me or human nature in general. 🙈
<h3><em>#Murdertrending</em> gives off <em>Hunger Games</em> vibes</h3>
We have Dee Guerrera, a girl who is supposedly guilty of murdering her stepsister and is sent to Alcatraz 2.0, a prison for those who are convicted of murdering someone. <strong>The entire prison is full of killers, and they never know when they'll be the next person whose murder will be publicized for all to see.</strong> It's <em>Hunger Games</em> without fighting amongst the inmates, or rather capital punishment for the entertainment of millions of people.
(And Death Row Breakfast Club, which is a fitting name for Dee and her friends.)
<h3>I can't tell if I'm disappointed in the last few scenes.</h3>
<em>#Murdertrending</em> gave off that video game vibe sometimes - Press X and get a reagent! - as Dee found herself facing off against the government-sanctioned killers who are in charge of killing the inmates one by one. Fortunately for Dee and the reader's cruel enjoyment, she still has some obstacles in her way.
<h3>To be honest, this felt tied to current politics in the US</h3>
Maybe this is me being very critical and overthinking, but McNeil's latest book felt really relevant to what is currently going on today (added on with the social media snippets). Only this one is more fictionalized and brutal with a lot more death and blood. And heads rolling, among other disturbing things.
<h3><em>#Murdertrending</em> is very plot-driven</h3>
If you're looking for character development, there won't be much of it. McNeil's latest novel is plot-driven to the core, fast-paced and action-packed.
<h3>That ending though...</h3>
I did NOT see that coming - I mean, I <em>should</em> have, but I didn't. McNeil kept me distracted from what was really going on in the story - there is so much going on that I didn't focus on being a step ahead and putting it all together before the story came together on its own.
<h3>This smells of a sequel?!?!?!</h3>
I have no clue if this is true or not (sounds like it is according to various sources and Google searches), but I am all for a sequel if it happens since I am immensely curious about what happens to the characters who survive the first novel. (Do I sound like a horrible person now?)
<h2><em><strong>#Murdertrending</strong></em><strong> is deliciously dark and twisted - it's very plot-driven and action-packed that will keep you turning the pages despite how gross it may make you feel.</strong></h2>
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/murdertrending-by-gretchen-mcneil/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
JT (287 KP) rated Fast & Furious 6 (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I've been a fan of this franchise since the very first film, and while Tokyo Drift might have been a little blip, or bump in the road, there is no denying that the films have delivered box office success. Fast and Furious 6 is the second film to be left on a cliffhanger (we’ll get to that later) and delves deep into the story of the mystery surrounding Letty’s (Michelle Rodriguez) death a few films ago. I don’t regard that as a plot spoiler as it’s in the trailer. Having demolished most of Rio and now living peacefully in a country with no extradition Dom and new dad Brian think that they have put all their troubles behind them.
After the opening credits montage, agent Hobbs (Johnson) comes knocking. His offer requires all the team converge once again, this time they have to track down and capture a ruthless mercenary called Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Hobbs and Toretto have to stand side by side working together to take down the villain. Letty of course has returned and is working for the bad guys but has no memory of her past life. If you’re a true fan then the plot will reveal more back story and as it turns out part six is practically a sequel to part four with past villains announcing a few home truths.
The film and action is set in the heart of London which, includes a car chase that defies belief, a ménage à trois of fist fights on the underground, shoot outs and a drag race that drifts through Piccadilly Circus. The action is pulsating and over the top but you shouldn’t care in the least about that. What were you expecting the film to do? Each vehicular sequence is more mind bending than the next.
Take the opening chase for example. A modified F1 style car pursued by Toretto and his crew as well as local police weaves its way through the streets with the ability to flip oncoming cars. Justin Lin who directed the last four films is well in control and more than happy to up the action.
Fast and Furious 6 is guilty of plot holes, but these will only be deconstructed by people who have nothing better to do. That said, even I was left wondering what distance the longest runway in the world was? There is a good level of humour with Tyrese Gibson’s Roman providing much of the light heartedness that the film needed. Let’s face it The Avengers had the same level of action and humour mixed and that seemed to work.
One of the dangers for this was having a cast that was pretty extensive, regrouping the team meant that there was jostling for position. But on the whole everyone has their time to shine and no one is really cast to the shadows. Evans does a good job as the main antagonist and Gina Carano also proves her worth after the abject Haywire a few years back.
Fast and Furious 7 takes place back in LA after the events of this film and has a teasing post credit sequence that will bait those fans to come back once again. James Wan steps into the directors chair for the seventh film switching from the comfort of the horror genre. I found Fast and Furious 6 to be a highly entertaining film, and you’ll need to check your brain in at the door. To quote a cliché it ‘does what it says on the tin’, and doesn’t take itself too seriously.
After the opening credits montage, agent Hobbs (Johnson) comes knocking. His offer requires all the team converge once again, this time they have to track down and capture a ruthless mercenary called Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Hobbs and Toretto have to stand side by side working together to take down the villain. Letty of course has returned and is working for the bad guys but has no memory of her past life. If you’re a true fan then the plot will reveal more back story and as it turns out part six is practically a sequel to part four with past villains announcing a few home truths.
The film and action is set in the heart of London which, includes a car chase that defies belief, a ménage à trois of fist fights on the underground, shoot outs and a drag race that drifts through Piccadilly Circus. The action is pulsating and over the top but you shouldn’t care in the least about that. What were you expecting the film to do? Each vehicular sequence is more mind bending than the next.
Take the opening chase for example. A modified F1 style car pursued by Toretto and his crew as well as local police weaves its way through the streets with the ability to flip oncoming cars. Justin Lin who directed the last four films is well in control and more than happy to up the action.
Fast and Furious 6 is guilty of plot holes, but these will only be deconstructed by people who have nothing better to do. That said, even I was left wondering what distance the longest runway in the world was? There is a good level of humour with Tyrese Gibson’s Roman providing much of the light heartedness that the film needed. Let’s face it The Avengers had the same level of action and humour mixed and that seemed to work.
One of the dangers for this was having a cast that was pretty extensive, regrouping the team meant that there was jostling for position. But on the whole everyone has their time to shine and no one is really cast to the shadows. Evans does a good job as the main antagonist and Gina Carano also proves her worth after the abject Haywire a few years back.
Fast and Furious 7 takes place back in LA after the events of this film and has a teasing post credit sequence that will bait those fans to come back once again. James Wan steps into the directors chair for the seventh film switching from the comfort of the horror genre. I found Fast and Furious 6 to be a highly entertaining film, and you’ll need to check your brain in at the door. To quote a cliché it ‘does what it says on the tin’, and doesn’t take itself too seriously.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Nightcrawler (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The concept of the American dream is generally thought of as ascending to great heights of success. For some, that means creating something out of nothing. They can do this either through lots of hard work, or by having a stroke of good luck.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Brave (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The digital wizards at Pixar have an incredible dossier of Academy award-winning animated films. Their latest film “Brave“, is a prime example of the bold new direction for the company behind such classics as “Finding Nemo“, “Toy Story“, “The Incredible’s“, and “Monsters, Inc.” just to name a few. This time out Scotland provides the setting for the animation masters to weave their magic, and they do in a splendid 3-D feast of sight, sound, and color that captures the breathtaking beauty of the Scottish Highlands.
For Princess Merida (Kelly Madonald), life is filled with joy and frustration. As the daughter to King Fergus (Billy Connolly), and Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson), she has to walk a fine line between the duties and expectation of her mother and her freewheeling lifestyle of daring and adventure. The young Princess is content to ride through the countryside astride her horse Angus, and perfect her already admirable archery skills.
When Merida learns that her parents have summoned the other major clans so that a worthy suitor can be chosen, Merida rebels openly at their plan and causes great embarrassment to her family during a competition. In a fit of rebellious anger, Merida rides into the woods, and comes upon a witch who promises to create for the young princess a spell that will forever change her destiny. Although not done out of malice, the spell has some on expected consequences that threatens the future of the kingdom as well as the safety of Merida’s family.
The film has some outstanding performances, not the least of which is Connolly, who was an absolute delight whenever his character was on screen. Supporting work by Craig Ferguson and Robbie Coltrane complement the leads well. Since my mother is a Scot, I am all-too-familiar with not only the history but culture of Scotland. I had been concerned when I first heard the project that it would play up on certain stereotypes and miss the true complexity and splendor of Scotland and its people, as well as it’s extremely rich history which is filled with numerous technical and literary achievements over the centuries.
Thankfully my concerns were allayed very early in the film not simply because of the amazing visual detail of the movie but also because of the lovable but quirky characters. The writers and animators managed to capture the very nature of the people and the culture, which is no easy thing in an animated film. Kudos for the casting of the mostly Scottish cast who played their roles with relish. I can honestly say hearing King Fergus address the clans brought to mind my aunts, uncles and cousins thanks to the distinct Scottish brogue. I especially liked the fact that when conflict erupted (of course) amongst even the best of friends, there are some very clever ways that laughs were gained without turning the characters into buffoons or being overly cute.
While the film plays it fairly safe with the story, Pixar’s first female heroine gives us a very fun and enjoyable tale that offers something for the entire family without talking down to the audience or having to resort to crude humor. A few scenes may be a bit intense for youngsters and while it will not be cited for any technological breakthroughs Brave, nonetheless, is highly entertaining.
For Princess Merida (Kelly Madonald), life is filled with joy and frustration. As the daughter to King Fergus (Billy Connolly), and Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson), she has to walk a fine line between the duties and expectation of her mother and her freewheeling lifestyle of daring and adventure. The young Princess is content to ride through the countryside astride her horse Angus, and perfect her already admirable archery skills.
When Merida learns that her parents have summoned the other major clans so that a worthy suitor can be chosen, Merida rebels openly at their plan and causes great embarrassment to her family during a competition. In a fit of rebellious anger, Merida rides into the woods, and comes upon a witch who promises to create for the young princess a spell that will forever change her destiny. Although not done out of malice, the spell has some on expected consequences that threatens the future of the kingdom as well as the safety of Merida’s family.
The film has some outstanding performances, not the least of which is Connolly, who was an absolute delight whenever his character was on screen. Supporting work by Craig Ferguson and Robbie Coltrane complement the leads well. Since my mother is a Scot, I am all-too-familiar with not only the history but culture of Scotland. I had been concerned when I first heard the project that it would play up on certain stereotypes and miss the true complexity and splendor of Scotland and its people, as well as it’s extremely rich history which is filled with numerous technical and literary achievements over the centuries.
Thankfully my concerns were allayed very early in the film not simply because of the amazing visual detail of the movie but also because of the lovable but quirky characters. The writers and animators managed to capture the very nature of the people and the culture, which is no easy thing in an animated film. Kudos for the casting of the mostly Scottish cast who played their roles with relish. I can honestly say hearing King Fergus address the clans brought to mind my aunts, uncles and cousins thanks to the distinct Scottish brogue. I especially liked the fact that when conflict erupted (of course) amongst even the best of friends, there are some very clever ways that laughs were gained without turning the characters into buffoons or being overly cute.
While the film plays it fairly safe with the story, Pixar’s first female heroine gives us a very fun and enjoyable tale that offers something for the entire family without talking down to the audience or having to resort to crude humor. A few scenes may be a bit intense for youngsters and while it will not be cited for any technological breakthroughs Brave, nonetheless, is highly entertaining.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated All About Steve (2009) in Movies
Jun 15, 2020
A Movie About a Crossword Puzzle Designer? Ummm...
With a mindblowing 6% Rating on Rotten Tomatoes (mindblowing because it’s too high), All About Steve is the story of a crossword puzzle designer who travels across the country with the hopes of convincing a CNN newsreporter that they belong together. I can feel your excitement. It’s palpable.
Acting: 3
Have you ever seen a mouse try and get off of a glue trap? That’s the equivalent of the acting work in this movie. Let’s start with the woman of the hour, Sandra Bullock playing the leading role of Mary Horowitz. I couldn’t help but think as she runs through her lines, “Do you even want to be on set right now?” She reads the lines of her character like a robocaller at times. I can actually say that for quite a few of the actors that bought into this dud.
Beginning: 6
I’ve seen worse starts to movies, I’ll be honest. The career fair scene is actually pretty hilarious which is probably about the only nice thing I have to say about this movie. If the entire movie had been like this, the overall score would have been double. Unfortunately the movie still would have been shit.
Characters: 5
I’ve always said, if you hate the main character of a movie, there’s a good chance you’re going to hate the movie. That theory definitely holds true here as Mary pains me with every single scene I watch her in. And the way they paint Bradley Cooper’s character Steve out to be such a jerk is just wrong. I mean this a reverse Pepe Le Peu situation we got going on here but he is the one we’re supposed to be mad at? Nightmare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 1
Yeah, there’s nothing I care about that’s happening throughout the duration of this movie. I could care less about Mary’s quest to win Steve because it’s just wrong. She’s a psycopath! When I say, “Nothing to see here!” I mean it.
Entertainment Value: 2
Ok, so here’s why I gave it a 2 despite how dreadful the entire movie was: I kept waiting to see how much worse things would get. The further I went down the rabbit hole, things just got more and more painful. Ever watch elementary school kids play basketball? Pretty much the same kind of train wreck here.
Memorability: 0
Pace: 0
Considering this is one of the worst movies imaginable, it’s no secret that “snail’s pace” doesn’t do it justice. Getting through All About Steve almost requires much drinking. Sure, you can survive it sober. Not advisable.
Plot: 1
It’s a story that makes no sense revolving around characters that don’t have a single solid motivation to their name. Even when you think for a moment that things might redeem themselves, the movie manages to set itself on fire again. Lost count of the number of times I asked myself, “Where the hell is this going?”
Resolution: 3
Overall: 26
Maybe it was because I was tired. Maybe it’s because I think Sandra Bullock is beautiful and who the hell would be stupid enough to run from that? Maybe it was because I had just watched A Quiet Place right before and was blown away by how incredible it was. Or maybe…All About Steve is just a terrible terrible movie. Yeah, I think I’ll go with the latter.
Acting: 3
Have you ever seen a mouse try and get off of a glue trap? That’s the equivalent of the acting work in this movie. Let’s start with the woman of the hour, Sandra Bullock playing the leading role of Mary Horowitz. I couldn’t help but think as she runs through her lines, “Do you even want to be on set right now?” She reads the lines of her character like a robocaller at times. I can actually say that for quite a few of the actors that bought into this dud.
Beginning: 6
I’ve seen worse starts to movies, I’ll be honest. The career fair scene is actually pretty hilarious which is probably about the only nice thing I have to say about this movie. If the entire movie had been like this, the overall score would have been double. Unfortunately the movie still would have been shit.
Characters: 5
I’ve always said, if you hate the main character of a movie, there’s a good chance you’re going to hate the movie. That theory definitely holds true here as Mary pains me with every single scene I watch her in. And the way they paint Bradley Cooper’s character Steve out to be such a jerk is just wrong. I mean this a reverse Pepe Le Peu situation we got going on here but he is the one we’re supposed to be mad at? Nightmare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 1
Yeah, there’s nothing I care about that’s happening throughout the duration of this movie. I could care less about Mary’s quest to win Steve because it’s just wrong. She’s a psycopath! When I say, “Nothing to see here!” I mean it.
Entertainment Value: 2
Ok, so here’s why I gave it a 2 despite how dreadful the entire movie was: I kept waiting to see how much worse things would get. The further I went down the rabbit hole, things just got more and more painful. Ever watch elementary school kids play basketball? Pretty much the same kind of train wreck here.
Memorability: 0
Pace: 0
Considering this is one of the worst movies imaginable, it’s no secret that “snail’s pace” doesn’t do it justice. Getting through All About Steve almost requires much drinking. Sure, you can survive it sober. Not advisable.
Plot: 1
It’s a story that makes no sense revolving around characters that don’t have a single solid motivation to their name. Even when you think for a moment that things might redeem themselves, the movie manages to set itself on fire again. Lost count of the number of times I asked myself, “Where the hell is this going?”
Resolution: 3
Overall: 26
Maybe it was because I was tired. Maybe it’s because I think Sandra Bullock is beautiful and who the hell would be stupid enough to run from that? Maybe it was because I had just watched A Quiet Place right before and was blown away by how incredible it was. Or maybe…All About Steve is just a terrible terrible movie. Yeah, I think I’ll go with the latter.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
Not much of a heist
Finding Steve McQueen is a heist drama centring around a young man who idolises Steve McQueen, and follows him as he joins a gang of thieves as they plot to steal millions from President Nixon’s secret funds. This is loosely based around a true story and is told from the point of view of the gang’s getaway driver Harry Barber, with his McQueen inspired locks and mannerisms.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The United States vs. Billie Holiday (2021) in Movies
Apr 16, 2021
Spasmodic biopic anchored by an astonishing performance by Andra Day
It's the late 40's in the US. We follow the distressing story of Billie Holiday (Andra Day) through her period of fame and drug addiction, while constantly pursued by Harry Anslinger (Garrett Hedlund) of the FBI. The reason? Holiday kept repeatedly singing the song "Strange Fruit" at her concerts, seen as being incendiary in support of the emerging civil rights movement. While surrounded by exploitative men, can she escape the destructive cycle and find true love with her "soldier boy" Jimmy Fletcher (Trevante Rhodes).
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2021
Another film that snuck its way through to VOD (and is thankfully now streaming). As much as I love Scooby Doo, I did not have the desire to pay money to view this one.
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
