Search
Search results
Merissa (12038 KP) rated Ugly by Kelly Vincent in Books
Aug 9, 2022 (Updated Aug 14, 2023)
She doesn't have the answers, and that's okay.
UGLY is a realistic story about a girl who doesn't fit in - anywhere. She is bullied at school, doesn't have any friends, the list goes on. And what made this such a good read is that she is completely 'normal' - whatever that is.
Nic is slightly overweight, doesn't like makeup or other girly-girl things, likes a boy who doesn't like her, and tries her hardest but doesn't always succeed. How refreshing to read about someone who isn't perfect! And then, to top it off, she stays that way throughout the book. There is no sudden weight loss and she's suddenly popular; she doesn't suddenly gain a boyfriend who smooths the way for her. She doesn't decide to change for the sake of conformity. She remains true to herself throughout, realising that not everyone is horrible, and some people will actually take her as they find her, without trying to change her. She doesn't have the answers, and that's okay.
I found the pacing to be smooth and the story flowed. It had ups and downs as Nic figured things out about her life. This book is unlike many others, and I thoroughly enjoyed every word of it. Definitely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Aug 3, 2022
Nic is slightly overweight, doesn't like makeup or other girly-girl things, likes a boy who doesn't like her, and tries her hardest but doesn't always succeed. How refreshing to read about someone who isn't perfect! And then, to top it off, she stays that way throughout the book. There is no sudden weight loss and she's suddenly popular; she doesn't suddenly gain a boyfriend who smooths the way for her. She doesn't decide to change for the sake of conformity. She remains true to herself throughout, realising that not everyone is horrible, and some people will actually take her as they find her, without trying to change her. She doesn't have the answers, and that's okay.
I found the pacing to be smooth and the story flowed. It had ups and downs as Nic figured things out about her life. This book is unlike many others, and I thoroughly enjoyed every word of it. Definitely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Aug 3, 2022
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2196 KP) rated Murder at Marble House in Books
Nov 6, 2024
Unfortunate Fortune Teller Murdered
We are once again in August 1895 in Newport, Rhode Island. Emma Cross, society reporter for the local paper, has her morning interrupted when her distance cousin, Consuelo Vanderbilt calls begging for Emma to come over to Marble House. While Emma finds herself caught up in some family drama, the last thing she expects is that her visit will end in murder. But that’s just what happens when the fortune teller that Alva Vanderbilt has hired is found dead behind the estate. When a family member vanishes, Emma starts to investigate. Can she find out what happened?
This book picks up right after the last one ends. While it doesn’t spoil the murder itself, it does give away some ongoing storylines. The story presents an interesting mystery, but the pacing does get off at times. We get some developments in Emma’s personal life, and I’m not sure I’m on her side as much after some of what happened here. If I’m this opinionated, clearly, I’m finding the characters real, and that includes real people and fictional characters. Speaking of which, the author includes a bit about what is true and what she twisted to make her plot work, which I always appreciate. I read this book right after getting to visit Newport, which made it easier to picture some of the locations. I’m already wishing I’d had time to really explore the locations more when I was there. Overall, this is a good second entry, and I’m looking forward to the next in the series.
This book picks up right after the last one ends. While it doesn’t spoil the murder itself, it does give away some ongoing storylines. The story presents an interesting mystery, but the pacing does get off at times. We get some developments in Emma’s personal life, and I’m not sure I’m on her side as much after some of what happened here. If I’m this opinionated, clearly, I’m finding the characters real, and that includes real people and fictional characters. Speaking of which, the author includes a bit about what is true and what she twisted to make her plot work, which I always appreciate. I read this book right after getting to visit Newport, which made it easier to picture some of the locations. I’m already wishing I’d had time to really explore the locations more when I was there. Overall, this is a good second entry, and I’m looking forward to the next in the series.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Since his spectacular fight which ended in a loss at the conclusion of “Creed”, Adonis Johnson Creed (Michael B. Jordan) has won his next six bouts and then pulls off an impressive victory to become the new Heavyweight Champion.
Life is good for the new champion as he believes he has moved out of the shadow of his legendary father and is ready to settle down with Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and move ahead with life.
At the same time, former Russian Champion Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) is training his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) in Kiev to become and even more devastating boxer than he was. Ivan has suffered much since losing to Rocky in “Rocky IV” as his wife has left him and he has been shunned and cast out of the country which once lauded him as their prize athlete. Losing to Rocky in Moscow in front of numerous dignitaries has ruined him and made his life a shell of what he was leaving him and his son cold, bitter, and driven.
When the opportunity for Viktor and Adonis to box is presented, Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) advises Adonis not to take the match. Rocky recounts that not only did Ivan kill his father in the ring, but in beating him, Rocky suffered injuries which ended his boxing career and have never fully healed.
Despite the warnings, Adonis takes the match and is unprepared for the raw brutality that Viktor presents and sufferers a horrific beating but manages to hold his title due to a technicality.
The film then follows a standard redemption story of Adonis trying to recover, face his fears, train, and find a new level of strength that he has never shown before. The climatic fight is very entertaining and well-staged and had fans at our screening reacting with cheers and dismay as the punches landed.
The film does follow some very familiar territory for the series from the emotional highs and lows of the ring, battling yourself as well as an opponent, the grueling training session, and of course the big match at the end.
Stallone gives another moving and solid performance as the aging Rocky showing that his Academy Award nominated turn in the prior film was not a fluke. What was also impressive was how Dolph Lundgren returned to a role he initially had reservations about doing and gave Drago a sympathetic side even though he is a bad guy in the film. We see a man desperate to recover what he was and who is devastated by what life has dealt him but forces himself to examine the past as he guides his son’s future.
Jordan carries a lot of swagger with his character and while the story attempts to show a softer side of his character; he is not as sympathetic as he was in the past film. I noted that Rocky was much easier to get behind as he was a more sympathetic underdog at times. That is part of what makes the series so interesting in that Rocky is still there as a presence over Adonis to guide and inform him to try to make him a true champion while allowing him to have his own identity and style.
If you are a fan of the series, then you should enjoy this next offering as long as you do not mind the formula for much of the series repeated.
http://sknr.net/2018/11/20/creed-ii/
Life is good for the new champion as he believes he has moved out of the shadow of his legendary father and is ready to settle down with Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and move ahead with life.
At the same time, former Russian Champion Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) is training his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) in Kiev to become and even more devastating boxer than he was. Ivan has suffered much since losing to Rocky in “Rocky IV” as his wife has left him and he has been shunned and cast out of the country which once lauded him as their prize athlete. Losing to Rocky in Moscow in front of numerous dignitaries has ruined him and made his life a shell of what he was leaving him and his son cold, bitter, and driven.
When the opportunity for Viktor and Adonis to box is presented, Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) advises Adonis not to take the match. Rocky recounts that not only did Ivan kill his father in the ring, but in beating him, Rocky suffered injuries which ended his boxing career and have never fully healed.
Despite the warnings, Adonis takes the match and is unprepared for the raw brutality that Viktor presents and sufferers a horrific beating but manages to hold his title due to a technicality.
The film then follows a standard redemption story of Adonis trying to recover, face his fears, train, and find a new level of strength that he has never shown before. The climatic fight is very entertaining and well-staged and had fans at our screening reacting with cheers and dismay as the punches landed.
The film does follow some very familiar territory for the series from the emotional highs and lows of the ring, battling yourself as well as an opponent, the grueling training session, and of course the big match at the end.
Stallone gives another moving and solid performance as the aging Rocky showing that his Academy Award nominated turn in the prior film was not a fluke. What was also impressive was how Dolph Lundgren returned to a role he initially had reservations about doing and gave Drago a sympathetic side even though he is a bad guy in the film. We see a man desperate to recover what he was and who is devastated by what life has dealt him but forces himself to examine the past as he guides his son’s future.
Jordan carries a lot of swagger with his character and while the story attempts to show a softer side of his character; he is not as sympathetic as he was in the past film. I noted that Rocky was much easier to get behind as he was a more sympathetic underdog at times. That is part of what makes the series so interesting in that Rocky is still there as a presence over Adonis to guide and inform him to try to make him a true champion while allowing him to have his own identity and style.
If you are a fan of the series, then you should enjoy this next offering as long as you do not mind the formula for much of the series repeated.
http://sknr.net/2018/11/20/creed-ii/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Girl in Pieces in Books
Jan 29, 2019
Very Raw (2 more)
Great cast of characters
Beautifully written
A Dark Gritty Read
When I read the synopsis of Girl in Pieces by Kathleen Glasgow, I knew it was a book I had to read. I'm a big fan of books that deal with mental illness. I just love how raw they can be. Luckily, Girl in Pieces did not disappoint.
The plot for Girl in Pieces is so raw yet it is beautifully written. The story starts out with Charlie at Creeley, a mental hospital because she's a cutter, and the last time she cut, she cut pretty bad. At first, she is a selective mute, but eventually, she starts talking again. We learn that Charlie's had a pretty bad life. She's been homeless, assaulted, pretty much lost her best friend, had a horrible home life and other things. When the money for her stay at Creeley runs out, Charlie is thrust back into the real world much earlier than expected. She's left to fend for herself. She moves out to Arizona to be with her friend and crush, but things don't turn out as planned. Charlie must learn to survive and heal on her own or risk losing herself once again. Girl in Pieces felt so relatable and so true to life, like it could happen to anyone at any time.
The characters in Girl in Pieces all felt very real and exposed. They were written perfectly and felt like people I know and have known. It was interesting and eye opening to experience Charlie's journey every step of the way from the highs and the lows. There were so many times I wanted to be Charlie's friend so I could support her and let her know when she was making a mistake. I wanted to be there for her after the mistakes had been made and let her know that every day is a new chance to start over. I loved Blue and her joking attitude. Riley was an interesting character. I wanted him to turn out good. I wanted him to get better for Charlie and for himself. Linus was also a very amazing character. I also loved how real Julie was. Every single character in this book played a great part in Charlie's life, and I loved how well written each and every one of them was.
The pacing for Girl in Pieces starts out really strong which I enjoyed. It does slow down a bit after Charlie gets out of the hospital, but it's still flows along at a good pace. There are a few places where the book does get a bit too slow, but it quickly picks up not too much later.
Girl in Pieces is a very raw, gritty, and dark book, so there are a lot of triggers. The whole book could be a possible trigger. Triggers include self harm, self mutilation, cutting, drug use, underage drinking, drinking, death, suicide, violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse, mental illness, dark thoughts, profanity, and sexual acts and references.
Overall, Girl in Pieces is a great read. It's very dark, but it is real and written so well with fantastic characters. I would definitely recommend Girl in Pieces to those aged 16+ who love a dark gritty read.
The plot for Girl in Pieces is so raw yet it is beautifully written. The story starts out with Charlie at Creeley, a mental hospital because she's a cutter, and the last time she cut, she cut pretty bad. At first, she is a selective mute, but eventually, she starts talking again. We learn that Charlie's had a pretty bad life. She's been homeless, assaulted, pretty much lost her best friend, had a horrible home life and other things. When the money for her stay at Creeley runs out, Charlie is thrust back into the real world much earlier than expected. She's left to fend for herself. She moves out to Arizona to be with her friend and crush, but things don't turn out as planned. Charlie must learn to survive and heal on her own or risk losing herself once again. Girl in Pieces felt so relatable and so true to life, like it could happen to anyone at any time.
The characters in Girl in Pieces all felt very real and exposed. They were written perfectly and felt like people I know and have known. It was interesting and eye opening to experience Charlie's journey every step of the way from the highs and the lows. There were so many times I wanted to be Charlie's friend so I could support her and let her know when she was making a mistake. I wanted to be there for her after the mistakes had been made and let her know that every day is a new chance to start over. I loved Blue and her joking attitude. Riley was an interesting character. I wanted him to turn out good. I wanted him to get better for Charlie and for himself. Linus was also a very amazing character. I also loved how real Julie was. Every single character in this book played a great part in Charlie's life, and I loved how well written each and every one of them was.
The pacing for Girl in Pieces starts out really strong which I enjoyed. It does slow down a bit after Charlie gets out of the hospital, but it's still flows along at a good pace. There are a few places where the book does get a bit too slow, but it quickly picks up not too much later.
Girl in Pieces is a very raw, gritty, and dark book, so there are a lot of triggers. The whole book could be a possible trigger. Triggers include self harm, self mutilation, cutting, drug use, underage drinking, drinking, death, suicide, violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse, mental illness, dark thoughts, profanity, and sexual acts and references.
Overall, Girl in Pieces is a great read. It's very dark, but it is real and written so well with fantastic characters. I would definitely recommend Girl in Pieces to those aged 16+ who love a dark gritty read.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Tolkien shows us a snapshot of the author's younger years from orphan to student, from soldier to scholar. I don't know much about his history but I'm familiar with the estate and I was surprised that this went through without their blessing. Not knowing the background I can't say how much is true and how much is artistic license, and sadly in this instance, I'm really not too bothered about finding out. Other biopics have left me with a desire to find out more about the subject matter but this left me rather indifferent about it.
It's not a wildly exciting life story that's captured in the film, what I found more compelling was the way that the creative process was depicted. The way they used visuals to connect everything in his life to his stories was beautifully done. The war scenes are stunning in their simplicity, seeing the colours against the stark backgrounds was incredible and I love how they managed to weave his visions into them. The mist effect was particularly well done.
I love the idea that Tolkien saw all these ideas in what most people would dismiss as life or a trick of the light. At the beginning of the film we see his mother telling the brother a story with the use of a zoetrope. (I'm not sure it's technically a zoetrope, do let me know what it is if I'm wrong.) The way they managed to create the feeling of life in those projections was mesmerising.
I'm quite aware that I haven't mentioned a single member of the cast yet. To be honest, I think I was so engrossed in the visuals that the rest of it was just kind of... there.
I found it difficult to keep track of who was who in his fellowship. I couldn't have told you their names or their individual niches. In fact, near the end I realised I'd got one of their names wrong the entire way through my notes.
Nicholas Hoult isn't an actor I'm particularly excited for in films, he is a consistent performer but I don't think I've seen anything that's wowed me. As Tolkien thought he did bring some surprisingly emotional elements... I definitely hadn't expected to cry at this screening. If I'd have been Edith in the moment where she asks him to tell her a story I'd have fallen in love with him on the spot, it had me leaning in intrigued to see him working everything out.
Visually, the movie is stunning and the feeling it creates is perfect, but everything else in the film felt very non-descript, and a lot of it seemed like it just had a place to make you link it to his writings. Tolkien is more of a nostalgic trip down memory lane than a biopic.
What you should do
The visuals on the big screen were amazing, but I don't think there's enough going on in the rest of the film to warrant a trip to the cinema for it. Try and catch it when it's available on home release though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to create a wall of ideas without getting annoyed that nothing was lined up straight.
It's not a wildly exciting life story that's captured in the film, what I found more compelling was the way that the creative process was depicted. The way they used visuals to connect everything in his life to his stories was beautifully done. The war scenes are stunning in their simplicity, seeing the colours against the stark backgrounds was incredible and I love how they managed to weave his visions into them. The mist effect was particularly well done.
I love the idea that Tolkien saw all these ideas in what most people would dismiss as life or a trick of the light. At the beginning of the film we see his mother telling the brother a story with the use of a zoetrope. (I'm not sure it's technically a zoetrope, do let me know what it is if I'm wrong.) The way they managed to create the feeling of life in those projections was mesmerising.
I'm quite aware that I haven't mentioned a single member of the cast yet. To be honest, I think I was so engrossed in the visuals that the rest of it was just kind of... there.
I found it difficult to keep track of who was who in his fellowship. I couldn't have told you their names or their individual niches. In fact, near the end I realised I'd got one of their names wrong the entire way through my notes.
Nicholas Hoult isn't an actor I'm particularly excited for in films, he is a consistent performer but I don't think I've seen anything that's wowed me. As Tolkien thought he did bring some surprisingly emotional elements... I definitely hadn't expected to cry at this screening. If I'd have been Edith in the moment where she asks him to tell her a story I'd have fallen in love with him on the spot, it had me leaning in intrigued to see him working everything out.
Visually, the movie is stunning and the feeling it creates is perfect, but everything else in the film felt very non-descript, and a lot of it seemed like it just had a place to make you link it to his writings. Tolkien is more of a nostalgic trip down memory lane than a biopic.
What you should do
The visuals on the big screen were amazing, but I don't think there's enough going on in the rest of the film to warrant a trip to the cinema for it. Try and catch it when it's available on home release though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to create a wall of ideas without getting annoyed that nothing was lined up straight.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Christmas Carol (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
The timeless classic A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens has been one of the most beloved and adapted stories in history. There have been numerous movies, plays, radio, and television shows that have told the story for several generations as well as adapted films such as “Scrooged” and “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” which were inspired by the timeless tale of redemption.
The latest version of the film was created by Director Robert Zemeckis (who also wrote the screenplay for the film.) and presents it with stunning 3D effects.
The clever use of animation based on motion capture of the actors brings a new and unique look and style to the film that makes it contemporary yet does not diminish the Victorian England setting of the story.
In case you are one of the few that are not familiar with the tale, the story centers on a miserly curmudgeon, named Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey), who is so tight with a penny that he keeps the coal in his office locked up, forcing his employee Bob Crachit (Gary Oldman), to make do with one tiny piece a day during the cold of winter.
Scrooge has no love for anyone or anything aside from his work, and he spends his life in working and dispensing venom for all those that dare come into his world.
When he is invited to Christmas dinner by his nephew Fred (Colin Firth), Scrooge declines the offer abruptly and berates his nephew about the pointless nature of Christmas and how it serves no purpose. As if he was just getting warmed up, Scrooge then unleashes his fury on a local charity and informs them that if the needy were to die, then perhaps there would be less surplus population in the world.
Alone in his home on Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his old associate Jacob Marley, (Gary Oldman), who passed away seven years earlier. Marley is bound by the long chains he created in his life, and warns Scrooge not to make the mistakes he did and that there is still time for him to find redemption.
Scrooge is visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future who take Scrooge on a journey through his life, and show him the folly of his ways, and offer him a second chance to lead a better life with caring and compassion to all.
The solid cast really shines and many play multiple roles in the film. Carrey gives a strong performance and manages to reign in his over the top energy during the more dramatic parts of the film, and lets it out where appropriate. He subtly infuses comedy into the story without it ever taking the focus from the story.
The 3D effects were a real treat and it truly seemed like it was snowing in the theater and the numerous shots of London were truly amazing. While some may see it as a more modern adaptation, I found the film to be very true to the story, and was not only very entertaining, but a version that even Scrooge himself would enjoy as this is a new holiday classic that sets the bar for future adaptations of the story to aspire to.
The latest version of the film was created by Director Robert Zemeckis (who also wrote the screenplay for the film.) and presents it with stunning 3D effects.
The clever use of animation based on motion capture of the actors brings a new and unique look and style to the film that makes it contemporary yet does not diminish the Victorian England setting of the story.
In case you are one of the few that are not familiar with the tale, the story centers on a miserly curmudgeon, named Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey), who is so tight with a penny that he keeps the coal in his office locked up, forcing his employee Bob Crachit (Gary Oldman), to make do with one tiny piece a day during the cold of winter.
Scrooge has no love for anyone or anything aside from his work, and he spends his life in working and dispensing venom for all those that dare come into his world.
When he is invited to Christmas dinner by his nephew Fred (Colin Firth), Scrooge declines the offer abruptly and berates his nephew about the pointless nature of Christmas and how it serves no purpose. As if he was just getting warmed up, Scrooge then unleashes his fury on a local charity and informs them that if the needy were to die, then perhaps there would be less surplus population in the world.
Alone in his home on Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his old associate Jacob Marley, (Gary Oldman), who passed away seven years earlier. Marley is bound by the long chains he created in his life, and warns Scrooge not to make the mistakes he did and that there is still time for him to find redemption.
Scrooge is visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future who take Scrooge on a journey through his life, and show him the folly of his ways, and offer him a second chance to lead a better life with caring and compassion to all.
The solid cast really shines and many play multiple roles in the film. Carrey gives a strong performance and manages to reign in his over the top energy during the more dramatic parts of the film, and lets it out where appropriate. He subtly infuses comedy into the story without it ever taking the focus from the story.
The 3D effects were a real treat and it truly seemed like it was snowing in the theater and the numerous shots of London were truly amazing. While some may see it as a more modern adaptation, I found the film to be very true to the story, and was not only very entertaining, but a version that even Scrooge himself would enjoy as this is a new holiday classic that sets the bar for future adaptations of the story to aspire to.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Machine Gun Preacher (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“Machine Gun Preacher” stars Gerard Butler, Michelle Monaghan, Kathy Baker, Michael Shannon, Madeline Carrol, and is directed by Marc Foster (previously directed “The Kite Runner” , “Quantum Of Solace” , “Monsters Ball” , and “Finding Neverland”).
The movie follows the true life story of Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) a former biker gang member/drug dealer who, at a major crossroads in his life, experiences a spirtial awakening and becomes a devoted preacher and family man. One day, after hearing another preacher speak about the plight of the thousands of kidnapped and orphaned children in africa as the result of civil war, Childers makes the life changing decision to go to Africa and assist in the building and repair of homes and ‘safe zones’ for refugees that have been damaged or destroyed by the chaos engulfing the countries of Sudan and Uganda. However, upon seeing the destruction and widespread horror inflicted upon the people (in particular the children) Childers decides he cannot stand idly by and do nothing to help.
Ignoring the warnings of overwhlemed peacekeepers and aid workers in the area, Sam decides to construct an orhanage where he thinks it’s needed the most – right in the center of the most volitile area in the Sudan, which also happens to be controlled by the brutal and ultra-violent LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army). The LRA roam from village to village kidnapping children and forcing them to become soliders for the LRA or even worse. In the beginning, Childers meets with success finding as many orphaned children as he can and ferrying them to his orphanage where they find food, shelter, and medical aid. But it is not enough. After several attacks and ambushes, Childers decides he cannot let the LRA continue to sadistically destroy lives. Sam begins to lead missions deep into LRA territory, taking the fight to the enemy while struggling with the knowledge that the situation grows darker every day for the people he is trying to help – in the Sudan and for his family back home.
This movie is definately intense and NOT for the faint of heart. I have not had the chance to read Sam Childers book which the movie is supposedly based on. As far as redemption tales go, this as realistic as it gets, in the sense that sometimes in order to find the salvation or spiritual awakening you seek, you’re forced to sacrifice all and risk losing everything you hold dear in this life in order to find it. Even with the knowledge that once you arrive at the end of that journey, you may not find the awakening you so desperately fought for.
The performances in this movie were all excellent. Kudos to Gerard Butler and Michelle Monaghan in particular. The young actors who portrayed the orphans and child soldiers definately knocked it out of the park as well. Butler also produced the movie which lends more credence to the whole theory that if one of the lead actors has a hand in the behind-the-scences work of the movie, chances are it’ll be a movie worth seein’. I’d encourage you to go see it regardless of the time of day in theaters or grab it on DVD. Rated R for extreme violence throughout and some sexual content.
The movie follows the true life story of Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) a former biker gang member/drug dealer who, at a major crossroads in his life, experiences a spirtial awakening and becomes a devoted preacher and family man. One day, after hearing another preacher speak about the plight of the thousands of kidnapped and orphaned children in africa as the result of civil war, Childers makes the life changing decision to go to Africa and assist in the building and repair of homes and ‘safe zones’ for refugees that have been damaged or destroyed by the chaos engulfing the countries of Sudan and Uganda. However, upon seeing the destruction and widespread horror inflicted upon the people (in particular the children) Childers decides he cannot stand idly by and do nothing to help.
Ignoring the warnings of overwhlemed peacekeepers and aid workers in the area, Sam decides to construct an orhanage where he thinks it’s needed the most – right in the center of the most volitile area in the Sudan, which also happens to be controlled by the brutal and ultra-violent LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army). The LRA roam from village to village kidnapping children and forcing them to become soliders for the LRA or even worse. In the beginning, Childers meets with success finding as many orphaned children as he can and ferrying them to his orphanage where they find food, shelter, and medical aid. But it is not enough. After several attacks and ambushes, Childers decides he cannot let the LRA continue to sadistically destroy lives. Sam begins to lead missions deep into LRA territory, taking the fight to the enemy while struggling with the knowledge that the situation grows darker every day for the people he is trying to help – in the Sudan and for his family back home.
This movie is definately intense and NOT for the faint of heart. I have not had the chance to read Sam Childers book which the movie is supposedly based on. As far as redemption tales go, this as realistic as it gets, in the sense that sometimes in order to find the salvation or spiritual awakening you seek, you’re forced to sacrifice all and risk losing everything you hold dear in this life in order to find it. Even with the knowledge that once you arrive at the end of that journey, you may not find the awakening you so desperately fought for.
The performances in this movie were all excellent. Kudos to Gerard Butler and Michelle Monaghan in particular. The young actors who portrayed the orphans and child soldiers definately knocked it out of the park as well. Butler also produced the movie which lends more credence to the whole theory that if one of the lead actors has a hand in the behind-the-scences work of the movie, chances are it’ll be a movie worth seein’. I’d encourage you to go see it regardless of the time of day in theaters or grab it on DVD. Rated R for extreme violence throughout and some sexual content.
The Richest Man In Babylon Audiobook App by George Samuel Clason
Book and Lifestyle
App
Groundbreaking Audiobook summary App puts your learning of George Samuel Clason-Success Principles...