Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A summer film so cool that air-con is optional.
Sorry for the lack of posts folks…. with a holiday in sunny Portugal, I’ve not been to the pics for weeks!
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Become The Force: 9 Lessons on Living as a Master Jedi in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Become the Force: 9 Lessons on How to Live as a Jediist Master (For Everyone Who Loves Star Wars) is written by Daniel M. Jones, Theresa Cheung.
Yes, I know what you are thinking! On the surface this does seem a bit of a giggle, but underneath it’s full of light goodness and that is simply a mix of being a good person over a bad person, and seeing the light side as opposed to the dark.
Disclosure: I am a Star Wars fan and I admit to taking a stand and putting my religion down as a Jedi Knight back in the last census of 2001. (Yep, I was one of those naughty people). Partly because of the protest but also partly because I’d always fancied myself as a Jedi Knight and it seemed a bit of a laugh at the time to say my religion was Jediism.
But that’s just it, whether you can truly classify it as a religion or not, this is more about a philosophy of being kind to yourself and each other. Many such teachings have been clearly taken from a mixture of Zen like “religions” as a way to understand your ‘self’ and to help make positive changes in our fast-moving, often stressful world.
In many ways I’d love to follow this path, yet I do see how some may never actually take this seriously, purely on account that some of these philosophies are based on the films, although not as heavily as some groups are. Yes there are other sects that differ and are more about the films than the mindfulness.
And that’s just what it is, mindfulness, living in the present and CBT techniques.
Believing in an energy force which surrounds us and is in all living things may sound like something out of a science fiction book, but it’s not. We are all living, breathing energy.
The author discusses spiritualist principles and ideas from great thinkers throughout history – from Plato to modern day Alan Watts (who proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of psychotherapy and not a religion), and of course it goes without saying, our great philosopher Yoda, too!
I’m impressed at how this book has been put together, and that it is not as crazy as I first thought it might be! lol
Yes, I know what you are thinking! On the surface this does seem a bit of a giggle, but underneath it’s full of light goodness and that is simply a mix of being a good person over a bad person, and seeing the light side as opposed to the dark.
Disclosure: I am a Star Wars fan and I admit to taking a stand and putting my religion down as a Jedi Knight back in the last census of 2001. (Yep, I was one of those naughty people). Partly because of the protest but also partly because I’d always fancied myself as a Jedi Knight and it seemed a bit of a laugh at the time to say my religion was Jediism.
But that’s just it, whether you can truly classify it as a religion or not, this is more about a philosophy of being kind to yourself and each other. Many such teachings have been clearly taken from a mixture of Zen like “religions” as a way to understand your ‘self’ and to help make positive changes in our fast-moving, often stressful world.
In many ways I’d love to follow this path, yet I do see how some may never actually take this seriously, purely on account that some of these philosophies are based on the films, although not as heavily as some groups are. Yes there are other sects that differ and are more about the films than the mindfulness.
And that’s just what it is, mindfulness, living in the present and CBT techniques.
Believing in an energy force which surrounds us and is in all living things may sound like something out of a science fiction book, but it’s not. We are all living, breathing energy.
The author discusses spiritualist principles and ideas from great thinkers throughout history – from Plato to modern day Alan Watts (who proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of psychotherapy and not a religion), and of course it goes without saying, our great philosopher Yoda, too!
I’m impressed at how this book has been put together, and that it is not as crazy as I first thought it might be! lol
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
A surprisingly pleasant thrill-ride!
The Fast & The Furious franchise paused to allow two of it's most memorable, larger-than-life characters to branch out on their own with this action-packed offering of explosions and humour.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bananagrams in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
What if I told you that you could play an entire game of Scrabble in about 15 minutes? You wouldn’t believe me, would you? I wouldn’t have believed me either until I discovered Bananagrams. Ok, so it’s not technically Scrabble, but the gist is the same – place tiles and create words! The biggest difference is that there are no points and there is no board. You have a ‘hand’ of letter tiles that you must use to create your own personal crossword faster than your opponents! If anyone uses all of their tiles, all players must draw a new tile from the center of the table and adjust/add to their existing crossword to incorporate the new letter. Once all of the letter tiles are gone, the first player to complete their crossword is the winner!
As a solo game, you play Bananagrams the same way as you would in a group – use your tiles to create your crossword, and the game is over when all of the tiles are used. It’s still a race against the clock – you are just trying to beat your own best time instead of finishing before your opponents.
Some games really were not made to be played solo and, in my opinion, Bananagrams is one of those games. Most of the excitement of this game comes from racing your opponents to finish your crossword before they do. Playing solo just feels a little pointless to me – it’s not as exciting or nearly as fun. You are in complete control when playing solo because the game advances only when you allow it to. In a group game, the game is controlled by the fastest players, and that might not always be you. Yeah, you’re still supposed to be trying to beat your own best time when playing solo, but speed doesn’t feel as necessary because honestly, it isn’t.
The only positive reason I have for playing Bananagrams solo is that it just allows you to practice playing the game. It gives you time to test out different strategies that could then be used in a group game. You can practice creating new words to better utilize your current tiles, or find easy ways to modify your current crossword without losing time. Solo play is a good exercise for your brain. Using the skills you’ve practiced in solo play can help you better succeed in group play. And group play is where Bananagrams really shines.
Bananagrams is a fast and fun game that definitely requires more thought and strategy than its silly title would lead you to believe. However, this is a game I would recommend mainly for group play. Give it a shot solo if you want, but don’t be expecting it to be particularly exciting or fun. I do love to play Bananagrams, but only when I get to play with a group.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/solo-chronicles-bananagrams/
What if I told you that you could play an entire game of Scrabble in about 15 minutes? You wouldn’t believe me, would you? I wouldn’t have believed me either until I discovered Bananagrams. Ok, so it’s not technically Scrabble, but the gist is the same – place tiles and create words! The biggest difference is that there are no points and there is no board. You have a ‘hand’ of letter tiles that you must use to create your own personal crossword faster than your opponents! If anyone uses all of their tiles, all players must draw a new tile from the center of the table and adjust/add to their existing crossword to incorporate the new letter. Once all of the letter tiles are gone, the first player to complete their crossword is the winner!
As a solo game, you play Bananagrams the same way as you would in a group – use your tiles to create your crossword, and the game is over when all of the tiles are used. It’s still a race against the clock – you are just trying to beat your own best time instead of finishing before your opponents.
Some games really were not made to be played solo and, in my opinion, Bananagrams is one of those games. Most of the excitement of this game comes from racing your opponents to finish your crossword before they do. Playing solo just feels a little pointless to me – it’s not as exciting or nearly as fun. You are in complete control when playing solo because the game advances only when you allow it to. In a group game, the game is controlled by the fastest players, and that might not always be you. Yeah, you’re still supposed to be trying to beat your own best time when playing solo, but speed doesn’t feel as necessary because honestly, it isn’t.
The only positive reason I have for playing Bananagrams solo is that it just allows you to practice playing the game. It gives you time to test out different strategies that could then be used in a group game. You can practice creating new words to better utilize your current tiles, or find easy ways to modify your current crossword without losing time. Solo play is a good exercise for your brain. Using the skills you’ve practiced in solo play can help you better succeed in group play. And group play is where Bananagrams really shines.
Bananagrams is a fast and fun game that definitely requires more thought and strategy than its silly title would lead you to believe. However, this is a game I would recommend mainly for group play. Give it a shot solo if you want, but don’t be expecting it to be particularly exciting or fun. I do love to play Bananagrams, but only when I get to play with a group.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/solo-chronicles-bananagrams/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2021
Another film that snuck its way through to VOD (and is thankfully now streaming). As much as I love Scooby Doo, I did not have the desire to pay money to view this one.
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Bring Me Their Hearts (Bring Me Their Hearts, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<i><b>Bring Me Their Hearts</b></i><b> has plenty of sass, snark and </b><b>humor laced throughout</b>, which is no surprise considering one of the biggest reasons why I loved Sara Wolf's debut novel is the sass and humor (I can now officially count on Wolf to make me laugh). This book literally starts with Zera comparing the king's worth to a <i>potato</i>.
<h2>Potatoes aside, let's talk about Sara Wolf's dive from contemporary into fantasy, aka <b>how did </b><b><i>Bring Me Their Hearts</i></b><b> do???</b></h2>
Because that is the most important question: is the book good? Is it as bloodeh as the title? Let me give you the 411.
<h3><b>If you're looking for a good dose of sass, snark and humor, count on it.</b></h3>
Zera has a comeback for <i>everything</i>. Of course, she says she can't help herself because it's how she deals with it since she became Heartless, which is essentially a witch's pet monster. If you can't deal with her comebacks, then suck it up an drop off a cliff is what she'll likely tell you. But the amount of sass is 👌👌👌 and #100percentapproved.
<h3><b>But let's be a little honest here: sometimes Isis Blake appears too much in Zera.</b></h3>
Isis Blake is <a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-love-me-never-by-sara-wolf-arc-review-and-giveaway/">the main character of Wolf's <i>Lovely Vicious</i> series</a> and sometimes she appears way too much in Zera. Think two people stuck in one body = identity crisis much?
Maybe I am complaining too much here because regardless of how Isis seems to appear occasionally in Zera, <b>I still enjoyed Zera's voice.</b> And I still approve of snarkcisms used. So I'll just sit in a corner and hush up.
<h3><b>Let's take a moment to appreciate a side character (really, we should appreciate most side characters).</b></h3>
Meet Malachite, who is officially one of my favorite characters of <i>Bring Me Their Hearts</i> simply because he was wonderful and had no filter for being a royal bodyguard. 11/10 would adopt.
But we all know, Ms. Wolf, that you're going to kill Malachite later on, right? And kill my feels along with it?
<h3><b>There is this weird issue of the beginning being kind of out of place but used as a lovely hook.</b></h3>
<i>Bring Me Their Hearts</i> starts us in a court before backtracking a few weeks and then continuing. <i>Please note I am a very forgetful person</i> but we're in Zera's world of Heartless and witches and then Training101 for 30% of the book. I completely forgot everything by that point aside from a potato being involved.
But it's used as a lovely hook, so I'm not exactly complaining too much (someone fix my memory please and thank you).
<h3><b>Common Fantasy Plot #2927: Got 'em!</b></h3>
Eventually, you get to the point where you see the most common plotlines aka royalty is secretly venturing out in the world of plebians to be a badass and accidentally meets potential love interest aka the main character.
<h3><b>I was expecting this to be more bloody? I did not get more bloody.</b></h3>
I got a lot of court intrigue, sass, humor, but I was expecting more blood for some reason. I got more near the end though, because Heartless are monsters after all.
<h3><b>Hold up, this is the first novel?</b></h3>
I was expecting this to be a standalone but hahaha no nice try, Sophia. Come back in the future to satiate your curiosities in book two.
<i>Bring Me Their Hearts</i> wasn't horrible if you enjoy a snarky little monster who really just wants everything to be all good and dandy (but hahaha, life isn't going to be that nice) and a nice little note tacked on the end that says, "come back soon for more!"
While I wanted a little more blood because I'm smol and evil thoughts run through my brain sometimes, this was fun to read, and I have hopes for the second novel.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-bring-me-their-hearts-by-sara-wolf-arc-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<i><b>Bring Me Their Hearts</b></i><b> has plenty of sass, snark and </b><b>humor laced throughout</b>, which is no surprise considering one of the biggest reasons why I loved Sara Wolf's debut novel is the sass and humor (I can now officially count on Wolf to make me laugh). This book literally starts with Zera comparing the king's worth to a <i>potato</i>.
<h2>Potatoes aside, let's talk about Sara Wolf's dive from contemporary into fantasy, aka <b>how did </b><b><i>Bring Me Their Hearts</i></b><b> do???</b></h2>
Because that is the most important question: is the book good? Is it as bloodeh as the title? Let me give you the 411.
<h3><b>If you're looking for a good dose of sass, snark and humor, count on it.</b></h3>
Zera has a comeback for <i>everything</i>. Of course, she says she can't help herself because it's how she deals with it since she became Heartless, which is essentially a witch's pet monster. If you can't deal with her comebacks, then suck it up an drop off a cliff is what she'll likely tell you. But the amount of sass is 👌👌👌 and #100percentapproved.
<h3><b>But let's be a little honest here: sometimes Isis Blake appears too much in Zera.</b></h3>
Isis Blake is <a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-love-me-never-by-sara-wolf-arc-review-and-giveaway/">the main character of Wolf's <i>Lovely Vicious</i> series</a> and sometimes she appears way too much in Zera. Think two people stuck in one body = identity crisis much?
Maybe I am complaining too much here because regardless of how Isis seems to appear occasionally in Zera, <b>I still enjoyed Zera's voice.</b> And I still approve of snarkcisms used. So I'll just sit in a corner and hush up.
<h3><b>Let's take a moment to appreciate a side character (really, we should appreciate most side characters).</b></h3>
Meet Malachite, who is officially one of my favorite characters of <i>Bring Me Their Hearts</i> simply because he was wonderful and had no filter for being a royal bodyguard. 11/10 would adopt.
But we all know, Ms. Wolf, that you're going to kill Malachite later on, right? And kill my feels along with it?
<h3><b>There is this weird issue of the beginning being kind of out of place but used as a lovely hook.</b></h3>
<i>Bring Me Their Hearts</i> starts us in a court before backtracking a few weeks and then continuing. <i>Please note I am a very forgetful person</i> but we're in Zera's world of Heartless and witches and then Training101 for 30% of the book. I completely forgot everything by that point aside from a potato being involved.
But it's used as a lovely hook, so I'm not exactly complaining too much (someone fix my memory please and thank you).
<h3><b>Common Fantasy Plot #2927: Got 'em!</b></h3>
Eventually, you get to the point where you see the most common plotlines aka royalty is secretly venturing out in the world of plebians to be a badass and accidentally meets potential love interest aka the main character.
<h3><b>I was expecting this to be more bloody? I did not get more bloody.</b></h3>
I got a lot of court intrigue, sass, humor, but I was expecting more blood for some reason. I got more near the end though, because Heartless are monsters after all.
<h3><b>Hold up, this is the first novel?</b></h3>
I was expecting this to be a standalone but hahaha no nice try, Sophia. Come back in the future to satiate your curiosities in book two.
<i>Bring Me Their Hearts</i> wasn't horrible if you enjoy a snarky little monster who really just wants everything to be all good and dandy (but hahaha, life isn't going to be that nice) and a nice little note tacked on the end that says, "come back soon for more!"
While I wanted a little more blood because I'm smol and evil thoughts run through my brain sometimes, this was fun to read, and I have hopes for the second novel.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-bring-me-their-hearts-by-sara-wolf-arc-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Jan 11, 2020
As my last cinema visit of 2019 I was just hoping for something passable to watch, animation his year has had a few hard knocks so I wasn't optimistic.
Lance is the world's greatest spy, catlike reflexes, excellent deduction skills as well as suave and sophisticated... all the things you'd expect. He's the golden boy of the agency and is ready for another pat on the back and some admiration. But it isn't his lucky day, the device he retrieved is missing from the case and now he's under investigation. He knows that he's innocent but there's damning evidence against him, his only hope is to clear his name, and the only way to do that is to escape the agency and track the real culprit down. His next problem, who can he trust?
This really is Bond for kids, everything is fantastically reminiscent of it, from his slightly too cocky demeanour to the brilliant opening credits. It's a pretty solid film, there's nothing much to dislike. It's essentially Bond mixed with Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs... what's not to love about that?!
I have to wonder about opening kids films this way, it seems to be very common at the moment. The lead needs to have a tragedy to get through the movie and have their moment of realisation. Playmobil did it in a much less subtle way, as did Wonder Park to some extent.
There aren't any real issues with the voice acting, though I do wonder about the choice of Ben Mendelsohn paired with his animated character, the two don't really match as well as the others. But that's not a deal-breaker.
The animation style is very clean and easy to watch. There are before and after shots of some scenes that show what the lighting guy does, it's really interesting to see. After having brought this topic up after seeing Klaus it was nice to see some of the "hidden" parts of animated films. The effort is immense.
Music is used well in parts of the film, and my favourite has to be the "romantic" portion towards the end, very amusingly set up and clearly well thought out.
Walter, our inventor, really does have the sort of imagination that would get him hired by Chester V. My favourite invention was probably the glitter distraction, I believe this may already exist though as it appears to have been deployed in my home over Christmas. This may be the only major continuity note... once Lance brushes the glitter off we don't see any little specks again, completely unrealistic!
There are a lot of great sequences during the film and the action moves it along quickly, add in the humour from the pigeons and all the gadgets and you get something really fun. I will definitely watch this again when it hits streaming. My score may seem a little off considering I didn't hate anything, the reason for this is that it's essentially a lot of other films mixed together. As I said, we've got Bond and Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs with an assortment of action movies and Home Alone 2 thrown in for good measure, which made it enjoyable but not instantly rewatchable.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/spies-in-disguise-movie-review.html
Lance is the world's greatest spy, catlike reflexes, excellent deduction skills as well as suave and sophisticated... all the things you'd expect. He's the golden boy of the agency and is ready for another pat on the back and some admiration. But it isn't his lucky day, the device he retrieved is missing from the case and now he's under investigation. He knows that he's innocent but there's damning evidence against him, his only hope is to clear his name, and the only way to do that is to escape the agency and track the real culprit down. His next problem, who can he trust?
This really is Bond for kids, everything is fantastically reminiscent of it, from his slightly too cocky demeanour to the brilliant opening credits. It's a pretty solid film, there's nothing much to dislike. It's essentially Bond mixed with Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs... what's not to love about that?!
I have to wonder about opening kids films this way, it seems to be very common at the moment. The lead needs to have a tragedy to get through the movie and have their moment of realisation. Playmobil did it in a much less subtle way, as did Wonder Park to some extent.
There aren't any real issues with the voice acting, though I do wonder about the choice of Ben Mendelsohn paired with his animated character, the two don't really match as well as the others. But that's not a deal-breaker.
The animation style is very clean and easy to watch. There are before and after shots of some scenes that show what the lighting guy does, it's really interesting to see. After having brought this topic up after seeing Klaus it was nice to see some of the "hidden" parts of animated films. The effort is immense.
Music is used well in parts of the film, and my favourite has to be the "romantic" portion towards the end, very amusingly set up and clearly well thought out.
Walter, our inventor, really does have the sort of imagination that would get him hired by Chester V. My favourite invention was probably the glitter distraction, I believe this may already exist though as it appears to have been deployed in my home over Christmas. This may be the only major continuity note... once Lance brushes the glitter off we don't see any little specks again, completely unrealistic!
There are a lot of great sequences during the film and the action moves it along quickly, add in the humour from the pigeons and all the gadgets and you get something really fun. I will definitely watch this again when it hits streaming. My score may seem a little off considering I didn't hate anything, the reason for this is that it's essentially a lot of other films mixed together. As I said, we've got Bond and Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs with an assortment of action movies and Home Alone 2 thrown in for good measure, which made it enjoyable but not instantly rewatchable.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/spies-in-disguise-movie-review.html
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Shining in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Different from the movie (1 more)
Well written
Contains spoilers, click to show
In his most well-known horror story, 'The Shining,' which is either a ghost story or the collapse of a man's mental state, Jack Torrance, a recovering alcoholic who just lost his job teaching at a school, gets hired to be the Winter caretaker of the infamous Overlook Hotel. In this book, the readers follow Jack into a nervous breakdown, as well as his possession by the ghosts of this hotel.
While the Torrance's seem like every other family - a small boy and moving to a new town - we find out that their son, Danny, has special abilities that help him to see things that may or may not happen in the future.
Soon after the family arrives to take over the hotel for the Winter, Danny meets a man named Hallorann - a chef at the hotel - who has the same abilities as him, which he calls 'Shine:' "What you got son, I call it shinin' on, the Bible calls it having visions, and there's scientists that call it precognition. I've read up on it, son. I've studied on it. They all mean seeing the future. Do you understand that?" Hallorann tells Danny.
Why does Danny, or anyone for that matter, have the Shine? King doesn't explain this in the book, it just seems to be something specific people are born with, even Danny's parents take him to a doctor before the snowfall hits to figure out what is going on,but even the doctor believes it's just a child's overactive imagination. Even so, Danny continues to have visions: one is of the room 217 in the Overlook, which even Hallorann told him to never go inside, and the other is of a creature-like man swinging a roque mallet, yelling about someone needing to take their medicine,"Come out! Come out, you little shit! Take your medicine!" We,also,meet his imaginary friend, Tony, who is the one whom continues to show Danny these visions over and over.
Unlike the movie, 'The Shining' book stands on it's own as an almost completely different story, even having Jack wielding a roque mallet and not an axe. Also the infamous scene of the Grady twins showing up in a hallway, asking Danny to play with them, never happened in the book; Hallorann also survives Jack's attack, Wendy is nearly beaten to-death by the roque mallet, and the hedge maze doesn't even exist! Instead, King wrote about topiary animals that came to life to kill you, "The rabbit was down on all fours, cropping grass. Its belly was against the ground. But not ten minutes ago it had been up on its hind legs, of course it had been, he had trimmed its ears...and its belly."
Jack begins to change when he finds a scrapbook in the basement that contains articles and such of things that happened at the Overlook. One such thing that sticks with Jack is about a Masked Ball that took place at the grand opening of the hotel. "Horace M. Derwent Requests The Pleasure of Your Company At a Masked Ball to Celebrate The Grand Opening of THE OVERLOOK HOTEL...Dinner Will Be Served At 8 P.M. Unmasking And Dancing At Midnight August 29,1945...RSVP"
Later on in the story, Jack, Wendy and Danny are awoken by the elevator going up and down by itself, but inside is a surprise,"Then she was up, her cheeks flushed, her forehead as pale and shining as a spirit lamp. 'What about this, Jack? Is this a short circuit?' She threw something and suddenly the hall was full of drifting confetti, red and white and blue and yellow. 'Is this?' A green party streamer, faded to a pale pastel color with age." Continuously, throughout the book,the past hotel guests make themselves known, either by showing up in rooms or leaving things for the family to find.
King shines (pun intended) with this book, he keeps things moving so that readers don't get bored. Known for his horror books, he doesn't disappoint in this one, which I personally think that this is his best work ever. He doesn't jump from scene to scene (like in many of his other books), he flawlessly keeps the timeline going even though he switches from character view points, between Jack, Danny, Wendy and Hallorann.
Although the film 'The Shining' is a classic in the horror movie genre, it is a huge step away from the book itself. "And the Red Death held sway over all." is a line that was never in the movie,but is quite frequent through the book. Even the most recognizable scene of "Here's Johnny!" is not in the book!
Also, Hallorann's character has a much bigger part in the story, the reader gets to see him living his Winter life in Florida, working as a chef in another hotel.. Hallorann even has a back story in the book that is wonderful to read about; we get to accompany him to a lawyer's office where he feels the need to get his Will made out for everything to be left to his sister when he is overcome with the feeling that his life may be about to end,"Hallorann had stepped in and told this McIver that he wanted to make a will,and could McIver help him out? Well, McIver asked,how soon do you want the document? Yesterday, said Hallorann, and threw his head back and laughed."
This 659- page book is well worth the read. You not only get a different take on 'The Shining' that is so well known,but you also get a different ending!'The Shining' will now always be a staple on my book shelf.
Even if you love the movie as much as I do (it is my favorite horror movie of all time), you will love the book just as much. King went above and beyond when he wrote 'The Shining.' Highly recommend!
While the Torrance's seem like every other family - a small boy and moving to a new town - we find out that their son, Danny, has special abilities that help him to see things that may or may not happen in the future.
Soon after the family arrives to take over the hotel for the Winter, Danny meets a man named Hallorann - a chef at the hotel - who has the same abilities as him, which he calls 'Shine:' "What you got son, I call it shinin' on, the Bible calls it having visions, and there's scientists that call it precognition. I've read up on it, son. I've studied on it. They all mean seeing the future. Do you understand that?" Hallorann tells Danny.
Why does Danny, or anyone for that matter, have the Shine? King doesn't explain this in the book, it just seems to be something specific people are born with, even Danny's parents take him to a doctor before the snowfall hits to figure out what is going on,but even the doctor believes it's just a child's overactive imagination. Even so, Danny continues to have visions: one is of the room 217 in the Overlook, which even Hallorann told him to never go inside, and the other is of a creature-like man swinging a roque mallet, yelling about someone needing to take their medicine,"Come out! Come out, you little shit! Take your medicine!" We,also,meet his imaginary friend, Tony, who is the one whom continues to show Danny these visions over and over.
Unlike the movie, 'The Shining' book stands on it's own as an almost completely different story, even having Jack wielding a roque mallet and not an axe. Also the infamous scene of the Grady twins showing up in a hallway, asking Danny to play with them, never happened in the book; Hallorann also survives Jack's attack, Wendy is nearly beaten to-death by the roque mallet, and the hedge maze doesn't even exist! Instead, King wrote about topiary animals that came to life to kill you, "The rabbit was down on all fours, cropping grass. Its belly was against the ground. But not ten minutes ago it had been up on its hind legs, of course it had been, he had trimmed its ears...and its belly."
Jack begins to change when he finds a scrapbook in the basement that contains articles and such of things that happened at the Overlook. One such thing that sticks with Jack is about a Masked Ball that took place at the grand opening of the hotel. "Horace M. Derwent Requests The Pleasure of Your Company At a Masked Ball to Celebrate The Grand Opening of THE OVERLOOK HOTEL...Dinner Will Be Served At 8 P.M. Unmasking And Dancing At Midnight August 29,1945...RSVP"
Later on in the story, Jack, Wendy and Danny are awoken by the elevator going up and down by itself, but inside is a surprise,"Then she was up, her cheeks flushed, her forehead as pale and shining as a spirit lamp. 'What about this, Jack? Is this a short circuit?' She threw something and suddenly the hall was full of drifting confetti, red and white and blue and yellow. 'Is this?' A green party streamer, faded to a pale pastel color with age." Continuously, throughout the book,the past hotel guests make themselves known, either by showing up in rooms or leaving things for the family to find.
King shines (pun intended) with this book, he keeps things moving so that readers don't get bored. Known for his horror books, he doesn't disappoint in this one, which I personally think that this is his best work ever. He doesn't jump from scene to scene (like in many of his other books), he flawlessly keeps the timeline going even though he switches from character view points, between Jack, Danny, Wendy and Hallorann.
Although the film 'The Shining' is a classic in the horror movie genre, it is a huge step away from the book itself. "And the Red Death held sway over all." is a line that was never in the movie,but is quite frequent through the book. Even the most recognizable scene of "Here's Johnny!" is not in the book!
Also, Hallorann's character has a much bigger part in the story, the reader gets to see him living his Winter life in Florida, working as a chef in another hotel.. Hallorann even has a back story in the book that is wonderful to read about; we get to accompany him to a lawyer's office where he feels the need to get his Will made out for everything to be left to his sister when he is overcome with the feeling that his life may be about to end,"Hallorann had stepped in and told this McIver that he wanted to make a will,and could McIver help him out? Well, McIver asked,how soon do you want the document? Yesterday, said Hallorann, and threw his head back and laughed."
This 659- page book is well worth the read. You not only get a different take on 'The Shining' that is so well known,but you also get a different ending!'The Shining' will now always be a staple on my book shelf.
Even if you love the movie as much as I do (it is my favorite horror movie of all time), you will love the book just as much. King went above and beyond when he wrote 'The Shining.' Highly recommend!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Beautiful Boy (2018) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018
Well acted, directed and written...and dour
The advertisement for BEAUTIFUL BOY says that it is a "heartbreaking and inspiring experience of survival, relapse and recovery of a family coping with addiction".
Heartbreaking, yes. Survival, relapse? Yes. Inspiring? Not so much.
Telling the tale of the true story of David and Nic Sheff (based on their memoirs), BEAUTIFUL BOY stars Steve Carrell as David and the wonderful Timothee Chalamet as Nic. It chronicles their relationship and David's attempt to help his son who has descended into addiction to drugs up to (and including) crystal meth and heroin. This is a tough tale, told rather unflinchingly and with great love and affection. It is also grim and dower. The highs are not really all that high and the lows are really, really, really low.
Which makes for a tough film to watch - it's a very good film - written, directed and acted well - but it's a tough film to sit through.
Let's start with the performances of the two leads. We view most of this film through the eyes of the Father, played by Steve Carrell. We start the film "in progress", meaning that Carrell's character of David has already come to the realization that his child is in the grips of something that he might not be able to get out of. Because of that, Carrell's character starts sad and somber and goes down from there. It is a well acted performance, but he is not asked to do much more than be sad and somber, punctuated by moments of frustration and anger and is somewhat overshadowed by the showier role and performance by Chalamet as the drug-addicted son.
I have now seen Chalamet in 4 films - INTERSTELLAR, LADYBIRD, CALL ME BY YOUR NAME and now BEAUTIFUL BOY, and in each one of these he was an actor that required your attention. He has a way of drawing you into his character's thoughts and feelings without saying or doing much. He is a "quiet" performer with a strength that is appealing and is no different in this film He was nominated for an Oscar for CALL ME BY YOUR NAME and I will not be surprised if his name is called again this year.
Joining Carrell and Chalamet are Amy Ryan and Maura Tierney as Nic's Mother and Step-Mother. Both are equal to the task that is given them - to be supportive, worried and sad - all at the same time. It would have been interesting to flesh out these roles in this tale, but that would have made this film something different than what it is intended to be - a tale of a father's inability to help his son, no matter how hard he tries.
Ultimately, the issue with this film is there is no variety to it. It stays, for the most part, on one emotional note throughout the course of it's 2 hour running time - somber and sad. That constant feeling of dourness makes this rather slow running film seem even slower, causing quite a bit of rustling and shifting in the chairs.
It's an important film about an important subject - I just wish they would have varied the pitch of it from time to time. Well acted, well written - and dour.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heartbreaking, yes. Survival, relapse? Yes. Inspiring? Not so much.
Telling the tale of the true story of David and Nic Sheff (based on their memoirs), BEAUTIFUL BOY stars Steve Carrell as David and the wonderful Timothee Chalamet as Nic. It chronicles their relationship and David's attempt to help his son who has descended into addiction to drugs up to (and including) crystal meth and heroin. This is a tough tale, told rather unflinchingly and with great love and affection. It is also grim and dower. The highs are not really all that high and the lows are really, really, really low.
Which makes for a tough film to watch - it's a very good film - written, directed and acted well - but it's a tough film to sit through.
Let's start with the performances of the two leads. We view most of this film through the eyes of the Father, played by Steve Carrell. We start the film "in progress", meaning that Carrell's character of David has already come to the realization that his child is in the grips of something that he might not be able to get out of. Because of that, Carrell's character starts sad and somber and goes down from there. It is a well acted performance, but he is not asked to do much more than be sad and somber, punctuated by moments of frustration and anger and is somewhat overshadowed by the showier role and performance by Chalamet as the drug-addicted son.
I have now seen Chalamet in 4 films - INTERSTELLAR, LADYBIRD, CALL ME BY YOUR NAME and now BEAUTIFUL BOY, and in each one of these he was an actor that required your attention. He has a way of drawing you into his character's thoughts and feelings without saying or doing much. He is a "quiet" performer with a strength that is appealing and is no different in this film He was nominated for an Oscar for CALL ME BY YOUR NAME and I will not be surprised if his name is called again this year.
Joining Carrell and Chalamet are Amy Ryan and Maura Tierney as Nic's Mother and Step-Mother. Both are equal to the task that is given them - to be supportive, worried and sad - all at the same time. It would have been interesting to flesh out these roles in this tale, but that would have made this film something different than what it is intended to be - a tale of a father's inability to help his son, no matter how hard he tries.
Ultimately, the issue with this film is there is no variety to it. It stays, for the most part, on one emotional note throughout the course of it's 2 hour running time - somber and sad. That constant feeling of dourness makes this rather slow running film seem even slower, causing quite a bit of rustling and shifting in the chairs.
It's an important film about an important subject - I just wish they would have varied the pitch of it from time to time. Well acted, well written - and dour.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)