Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Hugh Jackman completes his journey as Wolverine (1 more)
An emotional journey
Mutant with Human emotion
There are so many superhero movies these days, that the genre becomes somewhat dull and repetitive, especially when it comes to Marvel (not saying Marvel is dull and boring, but some of the films are somewhat lacking due to how many films there are each year - Just my opinion), but Logan is one of the greatest comic book movies I have seen for a while, for the fact that it makes Logan more human and explores the feeling of trying to fit into society, despite being so different.
Logan has always had a part of him deep down that just wants to be normal. He never wanted his power and though he's thankful for it in some ways he feels like he wouldn't have been lost without it if he never had it to begin with. This film explores that notion even further than the previous films as shows us Logan in the role of a father figure to young Laura and a son figure to a now very old Charles Xavier. In this film Logan doesn't feel like he's a mutant in the company of other mutants, He feels like he's apart of a family.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!
Later in the film we see Logan's fatherly side after Charles passes away, and Logan risks everything to keep Laura safe and to teach her right and wrong, and give her a parenting love that she hasn't known before in her young life. This also shines through the portrayal of young Laura (portrayed by the talented Dafne Keen) as we see her become more and more attached to Old Man Logan (I had to!). This is what makes this film the most human feeling superhero movie that I've ever seen.
The R rating makes this film come to life by bringing death in the most brutal of ways because it allows Laura to see what Logan has become and makes his message to her and to the audience a lot clearer. "Don't become what they made you"
Through all of the bloody violence and anger Laura is able to understand those words more clearly than if it was a 15 rated film because we see Logan when he becomes savage and truly unleashes his full anger that's built up over his long lifetime of war and hatred.
When this film comes to an end (my lord that ending had me balling like a baby) and we see Laura say her final goodbyes to Logan, you don't want it to end because you know that this has finally been the one time that Logan felt human and felt a true connection to someone. (Also because we want Hugh Jackman to be Wolverine forever)
The cinematography and directing of this movie is beautiful to look at and witness as the scenes unfold. The cast perform to the highest of standards and really deliver a convincing story the makes you feel sympathetic to each of the main characters.
Wolverine will never be the same without Hugh Jackman, but we must not be too quick to dismiss the new casting choice when it comes around. You never know, they might surprise you.
Logan has always had a part of him deep down that just wants to be normal. He never wanted his power and though he's thankful for it in some ways he feels like he wouldn't have been lost without it if he never had it to begin with. This film explores that notion even further than the previous films as shows us Logan in the role of a father figure to young Laura and a son figure to a now very old Charles Xavier. In this film Logan doesn't feel like he's a mutant in the company of other mutants, He feels like he's apart of a family.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!
Later in the film we see Logan's fatherly side after Charles passes away, and Logan risks everything to keep Laura safe and to teach her right and wrong, and give her a parenting love that she hasn't known before in her young life. This also shines through the portrayal of young Laura (portrayed by the talented Dafne Keen) as we see her become more and more attached to Old Man Logan (I had to!). This is what makes this film the most human feeling superhero movie that I've ever seen.
The R rating makes this film come to life by bringing death in the most brutal of ways because it allows Laura to see what Logan has become and makes his message to her and to the audience a lot clearer. "Don't become what they made you"
Through all of the bloody violence and anger Laura is able to understand those words more clearly than if it was a 15 rated film because we see Logan when he becomes savage and truly unleashes his full anger that's built up over his long lifetime of war and hatred.
When this film comes to an end (my lord that ending had me balling like a baby) and we see Laura say her final goodbyes to Logan, you don't want it to end because you know that this has finally been the one time that Logan felt human and felt a true connection to someone. (Also because we want Hugh Jackman to be Wolverine forever)
The cinematography and directing of this movie is beautiful to look at and witness as the scenes unfold. The cast perform to the highest of standards and really deliver a convincing story the makes you feel sympathetic to each of the main characters.
Wolverine will never be the same without Hugh Jackman, but we must not be too quick to dismiss the new casting choice when it comes around. You never know, they might surprise you.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
Solid Gold Movie
Chaos ensues when a bunch or salesman at a real estate agency are forced into a high-stakes game where they either become top closers or get fired.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
You think the beginning is going to be weak…until Blake (Alec Baldwin) walks in. He is filled with such passion and rage, but the one thing he is lacking is fucks. Blake has zero fucks to give about anyone’s feelings or their jobs. “Fuck you, that’s my name!” he screams at someone thinking they will get the upperhand on him. Classic.
Characters: 10
Aside from Blake, the rest of the characters add depth to the movie. With their different personalities, each character has a distinctly different approach to the way that they sell and go about winning. Their choices and reactions hold sway over which direction the movie turns and what the audience thinks is going to happen next. As things unfold and they end up being questioned by the Detective (Jude Ciccolella), it’s interesting to watch them have different responses to the pressure.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I love the cinematic work here. The entire film has a dreary feel, almost like there’s a fog being cast over the characters and their dilemma. The light comes in small glimpses and you mostly see rain throughout. It has a suffocating feel, adding even more certainty that the characters are resigned to their own fate.
Conflict: 10
Look, I’m in sales and few things institute conflict like sales situations. Tell a bunch of guys that they either hit their numbers or they’re fired and there’s bound to be problems. As the film drags on, the desperation becomes even heavier. You feel for these guys, but not so much so that you don’t get the enjoyment of watching them crumble in high pressure situations. As douchey as it sounds, it’s actually kind of fun.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Once Blake enters the scene, the movie maintains its pace from start to finish. Fueled by conflict and desperation, the characters ultimately create a mystery that you want to get to the bottom of before the movie reaches its end. It’s refreshing when you watch a movie that doesn’t have any dead spots and director James Foley succeeded in making that a reality.
Plot: 10
What happens when you put a bunch of different personalities in a room and tell them they have a certain amount of time to complete a goal or else? The story is ultimately moved by how people respond to pressure situations. I can imagine when this was written, the direction may have changed directions a couple of times due to the personalities of the characters. Memorable characters can alter the direction of a plot for the sake of staying true to the characters.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 87
I hadn’t even heard of this movie until a couple of years ago. It’s funny, this movie was recommended to me by a Sales Manager who thought, “This is how the sales team should go after it!” After watching it, I thought, “This isn’t how selling should be at all!” Glengarry Glen Ross succeeds because it appeals to people for different reasons. Some see it as a cautionary tale while others view it as inspiration. I am in the camp of the former. I’m also in the popular majority that think the movie is awesome.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
You think the beginning is going to be weak…until Blake (Alec Baldwin) walks in. He is filled with such passion and rage, but the one thing he is lacking is fucks. Blake has zero fucks to give about anyone’s feelings or their jobs. “Fuck you, that’s my name!” he screams at someone thinking they will get the upperhand on him. Classic.
Characters: 10
Aside from Blake, the rest of the characters add depth to the movie. With their different personalities, each character has a distinctly different approach to the way that they sell and go about winning. Their choices and reactions hold sway over which direction the movie turns and what the audience thinks is going to happen next. As things unfold and they end up being questioned by the Detective (Jude Ciccolella), it’s interesting to watch them have different responses to the pressure.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I love the cinematic work here. The entire film has a dreary feel, almost like there’s a fog being cast over the characters and their dilemma. The light comes in small glimpses and you mostly see rain throughout. It has a suffocating feel, adding even more certainty that the characters are resigned to their own fate.
Conflict: 10
Look, I’m in sales and few things institute conflict like sales situations. Tell a bunch of guys that they either hit their numbers or they’re fired and there’s bound to be problems. As the film drags on, the desperation becomes even heavier. You feel for these guys, but not so much so that you don’t get the enjoyment of watching them crumble in high pressure situations. As douchey as it sounds, it’s actually kind of fun.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Once Blake enters the scene, the movie maintains its pace from start to finish. Fueled by conflict and desperation, the characters ultimately create a mystery that you want to get to the bottom of before the movie reaches its end. It’s refreshing when you watch a movie that doesn’t have any dead spots and director James Foley succeeded in making that a reality.
Plot: 10
What happens when you put a bunch of different personalities in a room and tell them they have a certain amount of time to complete a goal or else? The story is ultimately moved by how people respond to pressure situations. I can imagine when this was written, the direction may have changed directions a couple of times due to the personalities of the characters. Memorable characters can alter the direction of a plot for the sake of staying true to the characters.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 87
I hadn’t even heard of this movie until a couple of years ago. It’s funny, this movie was recommended to me by a Sales Manager who thought, “This is how the sales team should go after it!” After watching it, I thought, “This isn’t how selling should be at all!” Glengarry Glen Ross succeeds because it appeals to people for different reasons. Some see it as a cautionary tale while others view it as inspiration. I am in the camp of the former. I’m also in the popular majority that think the movie is awesome.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2019
Thought-Provoking
Roma follows the story of Cleo, a domestic worker for a middle class family in Mexico. who is dealing with the strife of classism in the 70’s.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Into the Night in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Intriguing and refreshing mystery
Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock is working in Melbourne now, trying to negotiate relationships with her new boss, Chief Inspector Toby Isaacs, and her partner, Detective Sergeant Fleet. She has been in Melbourne for three months; this has meant leaving behind her five-year-old son, Ben, and his father, Scott. She's keeping busy with a series of cases, including that of a homeless man, Walter Miller, who was brutally killed and one with the famous actor, Sterling Wade, who was stabbed while filming a high-profile zombie film. Alone and away from her son, Gemma throws herself into her work, but will these difficult cases prove too much for her and her emotional well-being?
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Adults in Books
Mar 20, 2019
Quick read with its funny moments
Matt and Claire are no longer married, but both want to spend the Christmas holiday with their seven-year-old daughter, Scarlett. It's not quite clear whose idea it was, or how the whole thing came about, but suddenly Matt, Claire, their new partners, and Scarlett are spending a long weekend at the Happy Forest holiday park. Oh yes, and we can't forget that Posey, Scarlett's giant imaginary friend--a nearly life-size rabbit--is along for the ride too. Claire has brought Patrick, a fellow lawyer, a seemingly rational guy who loves Scarlett and is training for an Ironman. And Matt has brought Alex, his scientist girlfriend, who is skeptical about the whole affair. Suddenly the group is jammed into a small lodge, subject to the whims of a mercurial seven-year-old (and her pretend rabbit), and stuck doing a variety of "fun family activities." It's no wonder that this all leads to an event so horrific that the police are called.
This book was an odd one, as if it couldn't decide to be serious or funny. It starts out with a call to the police, so we know that someone has been shot at archery, but we don't yet know who. Then things unfold from the beginning of the holiday, slowly building back up to the incident. Interspersed with the characters' narratives are bits and pieces of the police's discussion with various people at the holiday park involved with the shooting. It's interesting, but it's a little disconcerting: partial mystery/partial character-driven novel/partial "humorous look at family fun gone wrong."
Unfortunately for me, I didn't find a lot of the book all that fun. Yes, I could see the humor in some of the situations, but honestly, a lot of it just made me uncomfortable. Perhaps it's being a child of divorce myself. Maybe too much hit close to home. I felt the most for poor Alex, who was tortured by Scarlett (and that darn fake bunny) and then forced to witness her boyfriend in a series of cozy moments with her ex. Patrick was slightly insane, Claire too good to be true, and Matt, honestly, an infuriating wuss for most of the book. As everyone got more and more tired of each other, I would have had a feeling of doom reading this even without knowing someone gets shot. You just know no good can come of this.
Now, yes, there is some dark humor here, and I did laugh at times. There are definitely some funny places. But I think Scarlett and Posey were supposed to be more funny than they were (I've been that kid angry at her parents for divorcing, but man, Scarlett was really irritating sometimes). When you really only feel for one of the characters (Alex), it's hard to stay invested in the book. Luckily, things improved a bit closer to the end, and I found myself getting a more into the story. Still, I couldn't help but find things a bit implausible and frustrating at times, and I really longed for more of the hilarity the book promised.
Overall, this is a quick read, and it has its funny, crazy moments. Still, the characters are tough to feel invested in and sometimes the plot was almost too zany and stressful for me. I liked this one, but didn't love it.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and LibraryThing in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This book was an odd one, as if it couldn't decide to be serious or funny. It starts out with a call to the police, so we know that someone has been shot at archery, but we don't yet know who. Then things unfold from the beginning of the holiday, slowly building back up to the incident. Interspersed with the characters' narratives are bits and pieces of the police's discussion with various people at the holiday park involved with the shooting. It's interesting, but it's a little disconcerting: partial mystery/partial character-driven novel/partial "humorous look at family fun gone wrong."
Unfortunately for me, I didn't find a lot of the book all that fun. Yes, I could see the humor in some of the situations, but honestly, a lot of it just made me uncomfortable. Perhaps it's being a child of divorce myself. Maybe too much hit close to home. I felt the most for poor Alex, who was tortured by Scarlett (and that darn fake bunny) and then forced to witness her boyfriend in a series of cozy moments with her ex. Patrick was slightly insane, Claire too good to be true, and Matt, honestly, an infuriating wuss for most of the book. As everyone got more and more tired of each other, I would have had a feeling of doom reading this even without knowing someone gets shot. You just know no good can come of this.
Now, yes, there is some dark humor here, and I did laugh at times. There are definitely some funny places. But I think Scarlett and Posey were supposed to be more funny than they were (I've been that kid angry at her parents for divorcing, but man, Scarlett was really irritating sometimes). When you really only feel for one of the characters (Alex), it's hard to stay invested in the book. Luckily, things improved a bit closer to the end, and I found myself getting a more into the story. Still, I couldn't help but find things a bit implausible and frustrating at times, and I really longed for more of the hilarity the book promised.
Overall, this is a quick read, and it has its funny, crazy moments. Still, the characters are tough to feel invested in and sometimes the plot was almost too zany and stressful for me. I liked this one, but didn't love it.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and LibraryThing in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Debbiereadsbook (1056 KP) rated Retribution (The Protectors #3) in Books
Apr 15, 2019
My fav of the three so far!
*verified Audible purchase June 2017*
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghostbusters (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I ain't afraid of no reboot
So it’s here. One of the most reviled films of the decade before it was even released; the Ghostbusters reboot has a tough job persuading fans of the original films and newcomers alike that it’s worth their time.
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/