Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Santa Suit in Books
Oct 28, 2021
Ivy Perkins buys a 106-year-old farmhouse, sight unseen, after a divorce. Known as Four Roses Farm, it was once home to Bob and Betty Rae Rose. Bob was famous as the town's Santa Claus, which Ivy learns when she discovers his lovely Santa suit tucked in a closet. In the pocket is a note from a young child, who simply wants her father to return home from the war. The note strikes a chord with Ivy, who finds herself wondering who the child was--and did she ever reunite with her father? Her investigation brings her in contact with the local townspeople, including Ezra, her realtor, neighbor, and handyman; a young woman named Phoebe; and a sweet town elder named Everett. Despite her reluctance to join in the town's many Christmas traditions, Ivy cannot help but be swept up in the small town and its spirit of Christmas.
"You mean, what's a nice, single, big-city girl like me doing in a hick town like Tarburton?"
This was an incredibly adorable, silly, cheesy book (more of a novella really). If you love Christmas movies, you'll find that this is basically a Hallmark Christmas movie in book form. And, as such, it's practically perfect: the snowy setting, a magical Santa suit, and a small town romance. What more could you ask for? Yes, you could pick at plot pieces and motives, but why? This is a quick read and a sweet one. Read in front of the fire with a cup of hot chocolate. 4+ stars.
"You mean, what's a nice, single, big-city girl like me doing in a hick town like Tarburton?"
This was an incredibly adorable, silly, cheesy book (more of a novella really). If you love Christmas movies, you'll find that this is basically a Hallmark Christmas movie in book form. And, as such, it's practically perfect: the snowy setting, a magical Santa suit, and a small town romance. What more could you ask for? Yes, you could pick at plot pieces and motives, but why? This is a quick read and a sweet one. Read in front of the fire with a cup of hot chocolate. 4+ stars.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2423 KP) rated Murder Out of Character in Books
Mar 1, 2024 (Updated Mar 1, 2024)
Has Marvey Found a Hit List?
The summer fun raising campaign for the library is kicking off with a cocktail reception, and Marvey Harris is in the thick of things thanks to her job. The event goes well, but as the staff is cleaning up, Marvey finds a list of names left behind by someone. She’s intrigued since her good friend Spence is on it as is a man who has just died.
Two days later, another person on the list has died. Marvey can’t help but think she’s found a list that someone is targeting, but she is having a hard time getting anyone to take her seriously. Especially since no one seems to be able to figure out a solid connection between the four people on the list. Can Marvey discover what is going on before a killer strikes again?
I’d intended to get back and finish this series, and I was happy to see the main characters again. While the supporting players could have been a bit better developed, I love Marvey and her friends. They are just wonderful. I was intrigued by the plot, but it didn’t quite work for me. The pacing was off, with some repetitive scenes. While the killer and motive did make sense, there was still a major part of the plot that was never explained. If you are a plot first person, I’d recommend you skip this book. But if you enjoy reading about strong bonds between characters, you will want to check this one out.
Two days later, another person on the list has died. Marvey can’t help but think she’s found a list that someone is targeting, but she is having a hard time getting anyone to take her seriously. Especially since no one seems to be able to figure out a solid connection between the four people on the list. Can Marvey discover what is going on before a killer strikes again?
I’d intended to get back and finish this series, and I was happy to see the main characters again. While the supporting players could have been a bit better developed, I love Marvey and her friends. They are just wonderful. I was intrigued by the plot, but it didn’t quite work for me. The pacing was off, with some repetitive scenes. While the killer and motive did make sense, there was still a major part of the plot that was never explained. If you are a plot first person, I’d recommend you skip this book. But if you enjoy reading about strong bonds between characters, you will want to check this one out.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I long for the blockbusters to come around again so I can stop saying "this is great but..." It has definitely become my mantra for January and I think it's the curse of awards season.
Melissa McCarthy is the second actor this month to take a big leap in genre and I'm loving it. Her comedy offerings have always amused me, Life Of The Party last year was great fun and I've just discovered she was DNAmy in Kim Possible so that means I need to watch all of that again!
I'm in danger of going off point now I've realised that last fact. Where was I?
McCarthy... Lee Israel is rather brash and as such has the potential to be entirely unlikeable, the performance is excellent though and McCarthy manages to make every situation feel very real. Despite that though I didn't get any real emotions out of any of it.
Luckily Richard E. Grant's inclusion allows the film to have a few lighter moments and the pair work wonderfully together on screen. I'm rather glad that this erased some of the damage The Nutcracker And The Four Realms did.
At no point during the film did I think anything was badly done. Lead and supporting actors were brilliant, the story it was based on was an interesting one... insert my phrase of the month here... The main issue I had with the film was pacing. I came out thinking that was a long two hour film before realising that it was only actually an hour and 46 minutes. At the mid-point my interest dwindled severely for a while but it did thankfully pick up a little. There are several bits that don't feel like they have much of a place in the story, whether they're part of the original narrative or added for the film I don't know but while they might have been there for background they didn't add any impact to the main story.
This rating has me a little at odds, the stars are mainly for the acting and the switch in pace for Melissa McCarthy, and as I said, nothing is badly done. Even with the limited audience potential this could have been an amazing film had it had something to keep you interested the whole way through.
What you should do
It's got some good points, but it is a very niche subject matter so I don't think I'd be recommending a viewing to anyone but my most booky friends.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All those glorious bookshops!
Melissa McCarthy is the second actor this month to take a big leap in genre and I'm loving it. Her comedy offerings have always amused me, Life Of The Party last year was great fun and I've just discovered she was DNAmy in Kim Possible so that means I need to watch all of that again!
I'm in danger of going off point now I've realised that last fact. Where was I?
McCarthy... Lee Israel is rather brash and as such has the potential to be entirely unlikeable, the performance is excellent though and McCarthy manages to make every situation feel very real. Despite that though I didn't get any real emotions out of any of it.
Luckily Richard E. Grant's inclusion allows the film to have a few lighter moments and the pair work wonderfully together on screen. I'm rather glad that this erased some of the damage The Nutcracker And The Four Realms did.
At no point during the film did I think anything was badly done. Lead and supporting actors were brilliant, the story it was based on was an interesting one... insert my phrase of the month here... The main issue I had with the film was pacing. I came out thinking that was a long two hour film before realising that it was only actually an hour and 46 minutes. At the mid-point my interest dwindled severely for a while but it did thankfully pick up a little. There are several bits that don't feel like they have much of a place in the story, whether they're part of the original narrative or added for the film I don't know but while they might have been there for background they didn't add any impact to the main story.
This rating has me a little at odds, the stars are mainly for the acting and the switch in pace for Melissa McCarthy, and as I said, nothing is badly done. Even with the limited audience potential this could have been an amazing film had it had something to keep you interested the whole way through.
What you should do
It's got some good points, but it is a very niche subject matter so I don't think I'd be recommending a viewing to anyone but my most booky friends.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All those glorious bookshops!
Cori June (3033 KP) rated Gun, With Occasional Music in Books
Nov 23, 2021
Banter (1 more)
Good premise
Easily distracted while reading (2 more)
Poor execution of idea
Not good with explanations
I went into this book with low expectations. I mean there's a kangaroo with a gun. How serious can you take it? But suprisingly, I wouldn't say it qualified as absurdist noir/sci-fi.
The noir part is ok, pretty straightforward; however the point is to try and solve it along with the detective, or in this case private inquisitor, but the character made leaps and bounds with his puzzling and I was ".... how did you figure that?" Or I was more intrigued by the babyheads (which got a passing explanation that was blah and not enough) or the fact that the government encouraged the use of addictive drugs like forgetol or avoidtol (yeah super creative names but it got the point across) or why it was considered rude to ask questions or what is up with the Karma card? Most of which you get 0 answers.
The sci-fi aspect is surface level with the evolution of animals and the accelerated intelligence of babies/child. Freezing prisoners instead if regular jail. It was meh with sparatic points of interesting.
The dystopian world was well thought out but he did spend way too much waxing poetic on sunsets and sunrises. Don't get me wrong I love sunsets and sunrises but when I tried to see if there would be important information dropped at these points I got nothing.
The banter between characters was pretty good. Not the best bit it was good fir a small chuckle or appreciation.
The main character is not an likeable one however I found myself rooting for him. And I was repulsed by him and not just because of how he treats women. He even admits it is wrong. He's a very angry main character.
There is a take on body dysphoria, although as this book came out in the 90s I don't know if that was intentional or not.
Not having body dysphoria, but understanding how you can be uncomfortable in your own skin. I wonder if it's a semi accurate description?????
I almost rated it a five but I am still confused and am going "WTF did I just read?" So I thought a lot and was also way too easily distracted by other things (like tiktok or tv or my own thoughts). I should have been able to read this book in a day slow pacing or not and kept getting bored with it. I'll probably unhaul it at a used bookstore where someone can appreciate it more than I.
The noir part is ok, pretty straightforward; however the point is to try and solve it along with the detective, or in this case private inquisitor, but the character made leaps and bounds with his puzzling and I was ".... how did you figure that?" Or I was more intrigued by the babyheads (which got a passing explanation that was blah and not enough) or the fact that the government encouraged the use of addictive drugs like forgetol or avoidtol (yeah super creative names but it got the point across) or why it was considered rude to ask questions or what is up with the Karma card? Most of which you get 0 answers.
The sci-fi aspect is surface level with the evolution of animals and the accelerated intelligence of babies/child. Freezing prisoners instead if regular jail. It was meh with sparatic points of interesting.
The dystopian world was well thought out but he did spend way too much waxing poetic on sunsets and sunrises. Don't get me wrong I love sunsets and sunrises but when I tried to see if there would be important information dropped at these points I got nothing.
The banter between characters was pretty good. Not the best bit it was good fir a small chuckle or appreciation.
The main character is not an likeable one however I found myself rooting for him. And I was repulsed by him and not just because of how he treats women. He even admits it is wrong. He's a very angry main character.
There is a take on body dysphoria, although as this book came out in the 90s I don't know if that was intentional or not.
Not having body dysphoria, but understanding how you can be uncomfortable in your own skin. I wonder if it's a semi accurate description?????
I almost rated it a five but I am still confused and am going "WTF did I just read?" So I thought a lot and was also way too easily distracted by other things (like tiktok or tv or my own thoughts). I should have been able to read this book in a day slow pacing or not and kept getting bored with it. I'll probably unhaul it at a used bookstore where someone can appreciate it more than I.
I first learned about you, Joe, when I sat one Sunday morning on Netflix and I could not keep my eyes off of the promo for this show about you fixating on a blonde woman. Naturally, I was intrigued and I had to learn about you, Joe, and how exactly you could see stalking as a way of getting close to someone and love them. I do wish you hadn't been a manager at a bookstore, Joe. I'm a booknerd, it was difficult to not like you, most of the time.
I watched your story and then I listened to your story. Joe, there are quite a few differences between the BookJoe and the NetflixJoe. Either way, Joe, I judge you harshly at each passing moment when you follow this girl, Guinevere Beck (can we just laugh at the irony that her name is Guinevere? If you haven't read King Author, you should) or stalk her using her old phone that she believed lost.
Just a little nit pick on my part, Netflix, Android and Apple DO NOT use the same cloud! They are ENTIRELY different companies with entirely different hardware. There was no way, NetflixJoe, that you could have seen the woman's emails or texts from an Android phone when she got a new phone that is an Apple. Rant over, now back to you, Joe.
BookJoe is more wordy and more story telling. Perhaps your warped mind may have believed Guinevere (Beck in both stories) might have flirted with you. This begs the question, what made her stand out from any other WOMAN who doesn't wear a bra (and don't state that you can't tell because you point that out about Beck every chance you got)? It couldn't have been the books she purchased as how you mentally made fun of the fact that she bought a certain book because the author was a relative of a celebrity.
I'll give you credit, NetflixJoe, while NetflixBeck was still a bit off with her procrastination and her obsessiveness with a crack head and drinking, she still grew some character and made for someone with potential. BookBeck, on the other hand, BookJoe, you really could have picked a much better person to stalk.
BookBeck is highly ditzy, a pushover, loves to drink (a lot!), and prefers casual encounters (which you found that out by going through her email) with other men, except you! She claims she wants to write, yet spends little if any time doing it, and while you do somewhat encourage her, it doesn't work. She just wants to say she wants to write, but not do it. And when she does write, and BookJoe you have stated this a little annoyance before, it's pure pornography.
BookJoe, I often pitied you because you are highly intelligent yet so stupid. BookBeck was all wrong for you and you spent all this time trying to make her right and doing it all the wrong way. Oh, Joe, you just couldn't take it. And you couldn't see it. So stupid, Joe.
Okay, as fun as that was, here's the remainder of the review without me talking to Joe. The show on Netflix was so hard to turn off because it was that intense. No, I DO NOT ship Beck and Joe. HE IS STILL A STALKER!! The show really showed that even the people who seem all nice and laid back CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS DANGEROUS! The book does the same thing as well.
In the book, it's all told in Joe's point of view, and he could very well be not a very reliable narrator. All of it is told from what he sees and sometimes what he wishes he could see. At least on Netflix, though Joe narrates mostly, you're able to see the evidence instead of going off by his word. He also gives off of how delusional he really is when it comes to Beck. He makes himself BELIEVE that Beck is just suffering from daddy issues with all these men and he can help her and make her only want him.
The story itself was really well put together. The book will definitely not give you the shipping feels like Netflix seems to do for some people. Most of the time, I do just say out loud how stupid Joe really is and how he maybe he should move on. I wasn't lying when I said BookBeck was all those things. She really was. I actually did not like her character at all. To me, there wasn't much growth except for small things here and there, but for the most part, she just remained this person who had daddy issues and tried to do everything she could to NOT write. I'll give her credit for finding out about Joe and trying to figure out how to get away, but that's about it.
The show is a great watch cause the story is pretty good. If you want to see everything and not go by Joe, watch the show first. If you are curious as to how BookJoe started and became NetflixJoe, read this book first. Do you think he's a reliable narrator?
I have to point out the similarities with these characters that of King Arthur, however. I mentioned that earlier because Beck's first name is Guinevere. Think about it (if you've read King Arthur when you were in school).
Joe is Arthur - he manages a bookstore and reads. He fixates himself on a woman who apparently is so enchanting that he must have her no matter what.
Benji in retrospect is Merlin - He may be hooked on drugs and a total douche, but he WARNS Joe about Beck and that she is indeed crazy and not faithful. Joe does NOT listen.
Dr. Nicky is Lancelot - he is a therapist to both Joe and Beck (separately and without the other knowing) and he tries to guide Joe through his therapy, but in the end, he falls for Beck and they have an affair.
Beck IS GUINEVERE - Not at all the person she appears to be for Joe and winds up being entirely unfaithful and suffers for it.
**I haven't figured out Peach, but she's just crazy**
It is a two part series - I need a break from Joe before I think about reading the second book.
I watched your story and then I listened to your story. Joe, there are quite a few differences between the BookJoe and the NetflixJoe. Either way, Joe, I judge you harshly at each passing moment when you follow this girl, Guinevere Beck (can we just laugh at the irony that her name is Guinevere? If you haven't read King Author, you should) or stalk her using her old phone that she believed lost.
Just a little nit pick on my part, Netflix, Android and Apple DO NOT use the same cloud! They are ENTIRELY different companies with entirely different hardware. There was no way, NetflixJoe, that you could have seen the woman's emails or texts from an Android phone when she got a new phone that is an Apple. Rant over, now back to you, Joe.
BookJoe is more wordy and more story telling. Perhaps your warped mind may have believed Guinevere (Beck in both stories) might have flirted with you. This begs the question, what made her stand out from any other WOMAN who doesn't wear a bra (and don't state that you can't tell because you point that out about Beck every chance you got)? It couldn't have been the books she purchased as how you mentally made fun of the fact that she bought a certain book because the author was a relative of a celebrity.
I'll give you credit, NetflixJoe, while NetflixBeck was still a bit off with her procrastination and her obsessiveness with a crack head and drinking, she still grew some character and made for someone with potential. BookBeck, on the other hand, BookJoe, you really could have picked a much better person to stalk.
BookBeck is highly ditzy, a pushover, loves to drink (a lot!), and prefers casual encounters (which you found that out by going through her email) with other men, except you! She claims she wants to write, yet spends little if any time doing it, and while you do somewhat encourage her, it doesn't work. She just wants to say she wants to write, but not do it. And when she does write, and BookJoe you have stated this a little annoyance before, it's pure pornography.
BookJoe, I often pitied you because you are highly intelligent yet so stupid. BookBeck was all wrong for you and you spent all this time trying to make her right and doing it all the wrong way. Oh, Joe, you just couldn't take it. And you couldn't see it. So stupid, Joe.
Okay, as fun as that was, here's the remainder of the review without me talking to Joe. The show on Netflix was so hard to turn off because it was that intense. No, I DO NOT ship Beck and Joe. HE IS STILL A STALKER!! The show really showed that even the people who seem all nice and laid back CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS DANGEROUS! The book does the same thing as well.
In the book, it's all told in Joe's point of view, and he could very well be not a very reliable narrator. All of it is told from what he sees and sometimes what he wishes he could see. At least on Netflix, though Joe narrates mostly, you're able to see the evidence instead of going off by his word. He also gives off of how delusional he really is when it comes to Beck. He makes himself BELIEVE that Beck is just suffering from daddy issues with all these men and he can help her and make her only want him.
The story itself was really well put together. The book will definitely not give you the shipping feels like Netflix seems to do for some people. Most of the time, I do just say out loud how stupid Joe really is and how he maybe he should move on. I wasn't lying when I said BookBeck was all those things. She really was. I actually did not like her character at all. To me, there wasn't much growth except for small things here and there, but for the most part, she just remained this person who had daddy issues and tried to do everything she could to NOT write. I'll give her credit for finding out about Joe and trying to figure out how to get away, but that's about it.
The show is a great watch cause the story is pretty good. If you want to see everything and not go by Joe, watch the show first. If you are curious as to how BookJoe started and became NetflixJoe, read this book first. Do you think he's a reliable narrator?
I have to point out the similarities with these characters that of King Arthur, however. I mentioned that earlier because Beck's first name is Guinevere. Think about it (if you've read King Arthur when you were in school).
Joe is Arthur - he manages a bookstore and reads. He fixates himself on a woman who apparently is so enchanting that he must have her no matter what.
Benji in retrospect is Merlin - He may be hooked on drugs and a total douche, but he WARNS Joe about Beck and that she is indeed crazy and not faithful. Joe does NOT listen.
Dr. Nicky is Lancelot - he is a therapist to both Joe and Beck (separately and without the other knowing) and he tries to guide Joe through his therapy, but in the end, he falls for Beck and they have an affair.
Beck IS GUINEVERE - Not at all the person she appears to be for Joe and winds up being entirely unfaithful and suffers for it.
**I haven't figured out Peach, but she's just crazy**
It is a two part series - I need a break from Joe before I think about reading the second book.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 10, 2017
Cast (2 more)
Gun play
Costumes and Sets
Gangsters, Guns and Money. What more is there?
To me Ben Affleck has always been a good actor. It doesn't matter if it is a good movie or a bad one, he seems to make his acting ability known. Live by Night was no different, he played gangster very well. It might be because he was also directing himself. Some movies you can tell that the movie is being directed by the actor in the movie, but in this one you could not see that line. The senses he was in you could tell they were done with the same quality as a director sitting in a chair.
Ben Affleck really does love Boston, because once again that where this whole thing begins. I didn't live in the 20's but the Boston accent must not have been established yet. It was quite refreshing not to hear it in a movie. I really didn't know Boston's backstory but I guess like everywhere on the East Coast there was a mob presence. They did a really good job showing the life of someone in the mob. It wasn't just the killing and booze. It really went deep with the love story of both women and what he had to go though to keep the love and them alive. Even though one of them turned out to be a backstabbing bitch.
When the story progressed to Tampa it was interesting to see something that I don't think has been portrayed in movies. Or I have never seen it. The mob in Florida. The interactions between the Irish and Italian mob in a world of Mexicans and Cubans was done very well. There was a lot going on and it never got boring. The only part of the story that got a little off was rivalry of the mob in Tampa and Miami. You never saw the fights between them until the end. I just thought it was over and done with after the Italians were run out of town. Or maybe I just missed it.
I won't tell you what happened to anyone at the end but the gun fight was amazing. So may parts put in and the chirography was done very well. I think the very end could have been done differently. To me it was very off putting and didn't understand why they choose to go that direction. Granted it was based off a book that I never read and maybe that's the way it had to be. But it could have been written better in the book too. Books seem to get the point across better anyway.
If you like gangster movies, see it. If you like Ben Affleck, see it. If you just want to watch a movie not to be bored, see it.
Ben Affleck really does love Boston, because once again that where this whole thing begins. I didn't live in the 20's but the Boston accent must not have been established yet. It was quite refreshing not to hear it in a movie. I really didn't know Boston's backstory but I guess like everywhere on the East Coast there was a mob presence. They did a really good job showing the life of someone in the mob. It wasn't just the killing and booze. It really went deep with the love story of both women and what he had to go though to keep the love and them alive. Even though one of them turned out to be a backstabbing bitch.
When the story progressed to Tampa it was interesting to see something that I don't think has been portrayed in movies. Or I have never seen it. The mob in Florida. The interactions between the Irish and Italian mob in a world of Mexicans and Cubans was done very well. There was a lot going on and it never got boring. The only part of the story that got a little off was rivalry of the mob in Tampa and Miami. You never saw the fights between them until the end. I just thought it was over and done with after the Italians were run out of town. Or maybe I just missed it.
I won't tell you what happened to anyone at the end but the gun fight was amazing. So may parts put in and the chirography was done very well. I think the very end could have been done differently. To me it was very off putting and didn't understand why they choose to go that direction. Granted it was based off a book that I never read and maybe that's the way it had to be. But it could have been written better in the book too. Books seem to get the point across better anyway.
If you like gangster movies, see it. If you like Ben Affleck, see it. If you just want to watch a movie not to be bored, see it.
Gaz Coombes recommended Africa Basil by Jorge in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mulan (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
"Dishonour on you! Dishonour on your cow!" This is probably the only thing from Mulan that I can identify beyond some of the characters. I think that's generally how Disney goes though, they become viral so easily that you recognise things without ever having seen the films... even worse in this case though... I actually own it but took myself to the cinema to see it anyway. If you're gonna do it you've gotta do it right because it doesn't matter how close I sit to the 50 inch TV at home it's not like watching it on the big screen.
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Woman in Black (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“During afternoon tea, there’s a shift in the air. A bone-trembling chill that tells you she’s there. There are those who believe the whole town is cursed. But the house in the marsh is by far the worst. What she wants is unknown, but she always comes back. The specter of darkness, the Woman in Black.”
Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliff) is a young lawyer who lost his wife during the birth of his son. He is a hardworking man who will do anything to take care of his family. Duty calls when he is ordered to go to the home of a recently diseased woman who lives in a remote marsh. When the local town catches wind that Mr. Kipps will be working at the remote house they start to fear what he might uncover while he works within the walls of the creepy home. He soon starts hearing noises and seeing shadows of an old woman in black. The town seems to think that it is somehow cursed as children keep dying unexpectedly and in bizarre circumstances. Is this the result of a woman scorned or is it just a superstition? Without the help from the town Mr. Kipps races to find out what the secret of the Woman in Black is.
Daniel Radcliff picked the perfect project to stray away from the Harry Potter series and I am glad he did. Now don’t get me wrong; the Harry Potter series is pretty awesome but the fact of the matter is most child actors don’t go very far within their acting careers. Take Shirley Temple for instance, she ended up not getting any major roles after growing out of her child faze. In any case it was a perfect decision on his part to take the chance on this character and just proves that we will be seeing much more of him throughout the coming years.
If you enjoy a good ghost story from time to time, The Woman in Black is such a treat to watch. Finally a really good ghost story that is not filmed like a home movie or a documentary but encompasses what a good ghost story should. The movie also has tidbits of British humor which I am a big fan of. Really good ghost stories like this one will chill you to the bone and startle your senses. Not an award winning movie but an excellent spine tingling story without the gore and special effects we have all become anesthetized to. Don’t miss this one in theaters I promise you won’t be disappointed.
Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliff) is a young lawyer who lost his wife during the birth of his son. He is a hardworking man who will do anything to take care of his family. Duty calls when he is ordered to go to the home of a recently diseased woman who lives in a remote marsh. When the local town catches wind that Mr. Kipps will be working at the remote house they start to fear what he might uncover while he works within the walls of the creepy home. He soon starts hearing noises and seeing shadows of an old woman in black. The town seems to think that it is somehow cursed as children keep dying unexpectedly and in bizarre circumstances. Is this the result of a woman scorned or is it just a superstition? Without the help from the town Mr. Kipps races to find out what the secret of the Woman in Black is.
Daniel Radcliff picked the perfect project to stray away from the Harry Potter series and I am glad he did. Now don’t get me wrong; the Harry Potter series is pretty awesome but the fact of the matter is most child actors don’t go very far within their acting careers. Take Shirley Temple for instance, she ended up not getting any major roles after growing out of her child faze. In any case it was a perfect decision on his part to take the chance on this character and just proves that we will be seeing much more of him throughout the coming years.
If you enjoy a good ghost story from time to time, The Woman in Black is such a treat to watch. Finally a really good ghost story that is not filmed like a home movie or a documentary but encompasses what a good ghost story should. The movie also has tidbits of British humor which I am a big fan of. Really good ghost stories like this one will chill you to the bone and startle your senses. Not an award winning movie but an excellent spine tingling story without the gore and special effects we have all become anesthetized to. Don’t miss this one in theaters I promise you won’t be disappointed.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Crank (2006) in Movies
Jun 26, 2020
Quick Pacing, Bad Movie
When a former hitman’s enemies inject him with a lethal poison that will stop his heart if it goes below an active rate, that hitman Chev Chelios is on a race to find the antidote while keeping his heart pumping at the same time.
Acting: 10
I could think of worse actors to play the role of Chev outside of Jason Statham. He seems like he was made for this type of movie. He brings a successful intensity to the role that kicks the movie into a new gear. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to save the film as a whole. While other performances didn’t necessarily warrant a 10, Chev is pretty much the entire centerpiece so I’m basing the score off Statham’s performance alone.
Beginning: 10
I honestly didn’t hate how the movie began. It actually gets off to a pretty fast start only to let me down later. If only I knew what I was getting myself into.
Characters: 1
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
For what' it’s worth, the film does a good job of making you feel like you are in Chelios’ shoes. The camera relies on close up shots and jarring movement when Chelios has to “charge up”. The action is also captured fairly well, giving you a true sense of being in the moment.
Conflict: 10
Consistent action abounds throughout the movie. In addition to Chelios kicking much ass, there’s also the matter of him trying to keep his heart pumping while he finds the antidote. There is more than enough conflict to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
While there are flashes of greatness in Crank, much of it is hyped up hyperbole so extreme it makes the movie really hard to get into. I lost count of the number of times I rolled my eyes throughout the movie. What did intrigue me throughout was just how much crazier the movie could potentially get.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 10
Plot: 0
What a dumbass story. That is all.
Resolution: 6
I give it props for an inventive ending. However, it wasn’t a successful resolution in my opinion. We followed Chelios on this entire journey for it to come to this? Nah, just…nah.
Overall: 64
You could tell this movie was going to be a mess from the trailer. Surprisingly enough it has a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it seems to have a cult following. I really don’t get it, even as an action lover. It’s a pass for me.
Acting: 10
I could think of worse actors to play the role of Chev outside of Jason Statham. He seems like he was made for this type of movie. He brings a successful intensity to the role that kicks the movie into a new gear. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to save the film as a whole. While other performances didn’t necessarily warrant a 10, Chev is pretty much the entire centerpiece so I’m basing the score off Statham’s performance alone.
Beginning: 10
I honestly didn’t hate how the movie began. It actually gets off to a pretty fast start only to let me down later. If only I knew what I was getting myself into.
Characters: 1
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
For what' it’s worth, the film does a good job of making you feel like you are in Chelios’ shoes. The camera relies on close up shots and jarring movement when Chelios has to “charge up”. The action is also captured fairly well, giving you a true sense of being in the moment.
Conflict: 10
Consistent action abounds throughout the movie. In addition to Chelios kicking much ass, there’s also the matter of him trying to keep his heart pumping while he finds the antidote. There is more than enough conflict to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
While there are flashes of greatness in Crank, much of it is hyped up hyperbole so extreme it makes the movie really hard to get into. I lost count of the number of times I rolled my eyes throughout the movie. What did intrigue me throughout was just how much crazier the movie could potentially get.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 10
Plot: 0
What a dumbass story. That is all.
Resolution: 6
I give it props for an inventive ending. However, it wasn’t a successful resolution in my opinion. We followed Chelios on this entire journey for it to come to this? Nah, just…nah.
Overall: 64
You could tell this movie was going to be a mess from the trailer. Surprisingly enough it has a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it seems to have a cult following. I really don’t get it, even as an action lover. It’s a pass for me.