Search
Search results
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Beatdown: Streets of Justice in Tabletop Games
Nov 12, 2019
Ever wanted to be a street level thug? Or the hero that fights said thugs? I haven’t really. But! I did used to love playing the Street Fighter games growing up. Now, you cannot Hadouken in real life (right?) and take out E. Honda, but you CAN fight thugs in the street… if you really wanted. You know what? I’m just gonna stick to fighting via card play. Wanna help?
Beatdown: Streets of Justice is a cooperative, push-your-luck, fighting card game that pits you and your team of heroes against waves of thugs and a boss fight. As it is cooperative, the players win by beating the boss (typically in the third wave of fights), or lose by being all knocked out. Silly heroes.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player takes a player mat, chooses a hero to play, and takes the dice of matching color to use during the game. Shuffle all the different decks of cards and place them on the table within easy reach of all players. The Attacks deck will include the base attack cards plus all cards that match the players in the game (like Invicta’s attack cards if she is in the game). Place tiny clear cubes on your starting health, as well as the starting health for the thugs you will be fighting in Wave 1, and you are ready to play!
Beatdown: Streets of Justice (or just Beatdown from now on) is played over three waves of fights where the heroes will play cards and do their fighting and then the bad guys will take their turns to fight. Generally, play will go like this: on a player’s turn they will play a card from their hand or one blindly from the top of the Attack deck. This is the opening to their “combo.” The Attack cards will typically have a damage amount and a combo rating number. In order to play more cards to the combo, the player will need to roll their d10 and roll a number equal to or higher than their accumulated combo rating (the little numbers showing in the green arrows of cards played + the green arrow number on the hero card). A combo can continue as long as the player can roll higher than their combo rating, but a failed roll doesn’t necessarily mean c-c-c-combo breaker, but rather that the hero has left themselves open for attack by the thugs. I won’t go into any more detail on fighting, as the rules are a little complex and I will let you discover those for yourselves.
After the heroes have taken all their turns, if thugs are still on the battlefield, they will now take their fighting turns. Flip over an Enemy Attack card from the deck for each enemy and resolve it against the heroes. Each baddie will make their attacks and if heroes are still conscious another round of the wave will begin. New thugs do not enter play, as they only populate at the beginning of a Wave. The thugs are no joke, and the bosses are even rougher. Can you be defeated? Yes. I was defeated in my first game. Can you be revived? Yes. Between Waves the players can participate in a Shopping Phase where they can use trophies (the cards of enemies they have defeated) to purchase health back, revive a fallen hero, or purchase a revealed Loot card to help in future fights. Play continues in this fashion for three Waves until the heroes complete the Boss Wave (by defeating all enemies) or all the heroes are knocked out.
Components. I have some good news and bad news here. Good news first. The dice are great. The tiny clear cubes are… tiny and clear. And they are just fine. The cards are good quality, as are the cardboard mats and tokens. The card layout is good too. The bad news: the rulebook is a little confusing for the first couple read-throughs and the art style does nothing for me. I appreciate the way the rules are very informal and make several chuckle-worthy jokes, but I feel like it could flow different and more efficiently. Similarly, in an industry where art can really make a good game great, this one is lacking. It’s really a shame, because everything else about the game is really good quality. The iconography is… fine, but the character art in-game is an issue I have with this.
Beatdown is actually a really decent game once you are playing. The rulebook needs work, and the art needs an update, but those grievances aside, Beatdown is an enjoyable experience at the table. I usually play pretty conservatively in push-your-luck games, but I went all out with this one and was more often than not rewarded handsomely for it. If your group enjoys cooperative, push-your-luck, fighting, card games give this one a look. Just don’t pay attention to the character art. This all said Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 6 / 12. Improve the rulebook and art and that rating improves.
Beatdown: Streets of Justice is a cooperative, push-your-luck, fighting card game that pits you and your team of heroes against waves of thugs and a boss fight. As it is cooperative, the players win by beating the boss (typically in the third wave of fights), or lose by being all knocked out. Silly heroes.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player takes a player mat, chooses a hero to play, and takes the dice of matching color to use during the game. Shuffle all the different decks of cards and place them on the table within easy reach of all players. The Attacks deck will include the base attack cards plus all cards that match the players in the game (like Invicta’s attack cards if she is in the game). Place tiny clear cubes on your starting health, as well as the starting health for the thugs you will be fighting in Wave 1, and you are ready to play!
Beatdown: Streets of Justice (or just Beatdown from now on) is played over three waves of fights where the heroes will play cards and do their fighting and then the bad guys will take their turns to fight. Generally, play will go like this: on a player’s turn they will play a card from their hand or one blindly from the top of the Attack deck. This is the opening to their “combo.” The Attack cards will typically have a damage amount and a combo rating number. In order to play more cards to the combo, the player will need to roll their d10 and roll a number equal to or higher than their accumulated combo rating (the little numbers showing in the green arrows of cards played + the green arrow number on the hero card). A combo can continue as long as the player can roll higher than their combo rating, but a failed roll doesn’t necessarily mean c-c-c-combo breaker, but rather that the hero has left themselves open for attack by the thugs. I won’t go into any more detail on fighting, as the rules are a little complex and I will let you discover those for yourselves.
After the heroes have taken all their turns, if thugs are still on the battlefield, they will now take their fighting turns. Flip over an Enemy Attack card from the deck for each enemy and resolve it against the heroes. Each baddie will make their attacks and if heroes are still conscious another round of the wave will begin. New thugs do not enter play, as they only populate at the beginning of a Wave. The thugs are no joke, and the bosses are even rougher. Can you be defeated? Yes. I was defeated in my first game. Can you be revived? Yes. Between Waves the players can participate in a Shopping Phase where they can use trophies (the cards of enemies they have defeated) to purchase health back, revive a fallen hero, or purchase a revealed Loot card to help in future fights. Play continues in this fashion for three Waves until the heroes complete the Boss Wave (by defeating all enemies) or all the heroes are knocked out.
Components. I have some good news and bad news here. Good news first. The dice are great. The tiny clear cubes are… tiny and clear. And they are just fine. The cards are good quality, as are the cardboard mats and tokens. The card layout is good too. The bad news: the rulebook is a little confusing for the first couple read-throughs and the art style does nothing for me. I appreciate the way the rules are very informal and make several chuckle-worthy jokes, but I feel like it could flow different and more efficiently. Similarly, in an industry where art can really make a good game great, this one is lacking. It’s really a shame, because everything else about the game is really good quality. The iconography is… fine, but the character art in-game is an issue I have with this.
Beatdown is actually a really decent game once you are playing. The rulebook needs work, and the art needs an update, but those grievances aside, Beatdown is an enjoyable experience at the table. I usually play pretty conservatively in push-your-luck games, but I went all out with this one and was more often than not rewarded handsomely for it. If your group enjoys cooperative, push-your-luck, fighting, card games give this one a look. Just don’t pay attention to the character art. This all said Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 6 / 12. Improve the rulebook and art and that rating improves.
Garrett (1099 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2020
Set design (2 more)
Costumes
Most of the acting
Story (2 more)
Theme
Message/meaning
I think I need to note a few things about my review before I actually get into it. First, I got this for free in a giveaway. Second, having watched the trailers for this I thought I wasn't going to like it and I didn't see it in theaters, the buzz and good reviews made me want to enter the giveaway so I could see it because I likely wouldn't have paid for it. Third, I know that I can "grade" movies I don't like harsher than maybe they deserve. Finally, in an effort to prevent me from being too harsh I "forced" my sister to watch it with me and some of her views of the movie and review are mixed in with my opinion of it.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
Siren's Surrender (Dark Tides #2)
7.0
Rate It
Book
Never embracing her mermaid heritage, Gwen Lonike lives in the human world as the owner of a Maine...
VoiceMap: GPS Audio Tours with Offline Maps
Travel and Entertainment
App
Experience the magic of GPS audio walks, cycles, drives and even boat rides with VoiceMap tours in...
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
This is perhaps the most difficult review I've ever written. I simply don't know where to begin. It might help to start with saying that, as a movie lover, Star Wars is my life blood. No movie has ever sparked my imagination the way the original film did. It's kind of cliché to say it, but the movie changed me. The 8 year old boy that walked out of the movie theater that day in 1977 was not the same one that walked in.
Over the years I would devour anything and everything Star Wars related that I could get my hands on. I followed the franchise across decades of films, and their various highs and lows. The same is true of The Last Jedi.
It's almost inconsequential to discuss the plot of the film. Like The Empire Strikes Back there is not just one story, one plot, being told. Yet all of them must come together in the end. This is where the highs and lows come into play. Every character is on a separate arc of growth and discovery. But there is one subplot that just does not work. At all. It feels out of place, and contains a message about cruelty that is so ham fisted and heavy handed, that when a character makes what is supposed to be a triumphant statement, I rolled my eyes and cringed.
The most important plot area of the movie centers around the return of Luke Skywalker. Mark Hamill gives the performance of his life. Never before has Luke been so layered, and so utterly badass. Watching him in this movie is like watching Heath Ledger as The Joker. He's so mesmerizing that every moment he's off screen, you're anxiously awaiting his return.
The action in the movie is breathtaking. An opening space battle is unlike we've ever had in a Star Wars movie, There are also two hand to hand combat scenes that are not only thrilling to watch, but are also important story moments that will leave you guessing as to their meanings until the end.
I can say this is NOT going to be a movie for everyone. It is not made to be the rousing crowd pleaser that The Force Awakens was. This film is filled with twists, turns, and more than one "I did NOT see that coming moment", and not all of those moments are going to please everyone. It takes Star Wars in directions you might not expect, and might not be happy with. But that is the nature of bold filmmaking. A director has to be true to his vision, take the risks he deems necessary, and let the chips fall where they may.
Now, since I said that there is one story arc of the movie that utterly fails, you might wonder how I can still give the movie a perfect rating. Simple...as a Star Wars fan, the highs of this movie took me SO high, that the lows of the film don't take me so low that they ruin the movie for me at all.
The film thrilled me, challenged the things that I believe make Star Wars what it is, and rewarded me with an original, visually dazzling movie that commands to be seen multiple times to pick up all the little things I didn't notice the last time.
Over the years I would devour anything and everything Star Wars related that I could get my hands on. I followed the franchise across decades of films, and their various highs and lows. The same is true of The Last Jedi.
It's almost inconsequential to discuss the plot of the film. Like The Empire Strikes Back there is not just one story, one plot, being told. Yet all of them must come together in the end. This is where the highs and lows come into play. Every character is on a separate arc of growth and discovery. But there is one subplot that just does not work. At all. It feels out of place, and contains a message about cruelty that is so ham fisted and heavy handed, that when a character makes what is supposed to be a triumphant statement, I rolled my eyes and cringed.
The most important plot area of the movie centers around the return of Luke Skywalker. Mark Hamill gives the performance of his life. Never before has Luke been so layered, and so utterly badass. Watching him in this movie is like watching Heath Ledger as The Joker. He's so mesmerizing that every moment he's off screen, you're anxiously awaiting his return.
The action in the movie is breathtaking. An opening space battle is unlike we've ever had in a Star Wars movie, There are also two hand to hand combat scenes that are not only thrilling to watch, but are also important story moments that will leave you guessing as to their meanings until the end.
I can say this is NOT going to be a movie for everyone. It is not made to be the rousing crowd pleaser that The Force Awakens was. This film is filled with twists, turns, and more than one "I did NOT see that coming moment", and not all of those moments are going to please everyone. It takes Star Wars in directions you might not expect, and might not be happy with. But that is the nature of bold filmmaking. A director has to be true to his vision, take the risks he deems necessary, and let the chips fall where they may.
Now, since I said that there is one story arc of the movie that utterly fails, you might wonder how I can still give the movie a perfect rating. Simple...as a Star Wars fan, the highs of this movie took me SO high, that the lows of the film don't take me so low that they ruin the movie for me at all.
The film thrilled me, challenged the things that I believe make Star Wars what it is, and rewarded me with an original, visually dazzling movie that commands to be seen multiple times to pick up all the little things I didn't notice the last time.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Shatter the Night in Books
Mar 19, 2020
Cedar Valley Detective Gemma Monroe takes a break from trick-or-treating on Halloween night with her young daughter Grace and fiance Brody to visit a family friend, former Cedar Valley Judge Caleb Montgomery. Caleb tells Gemma that he's been receiving haunting anonymous threats on his life. As Gemma, Brody, and Grace return to the Halloween festivities, they hear a gigantic explosion. Gemma quickly learns it was Caleb's Mercedes. The well-respected judge is dead. This kicks off a twisted and grueling case for Gemma and her partner, Detective Finn Nowlin, leading them down the dark past of Cedar Valley. There are ties to former serial killer and the more Gemma and Finn dig, the more disturbing things they find. Even worse, it appears as if Caleb's killer might not be finished.
"We had summoned the evil to our town just as surely as if we'd mailed an invitation. We just didn't know it yet, and by the time we did know it, the damage would already be done. People would be killed. Lives would be changed."
This was such a good book, you guys. I've read the first three books in the Gemma Monroe series and really enjoyed them, and this was such an excellent addition to this series. To put it in perspective, I started reading this book about the same time as Michael Connelly's latest. I quickly realized that wouldn't work as they both involved plots with arson, and my small brain was getting addled. Well, I found this book so completely captivating that this was the one I kept with--and I mean, Connelly is my most favorite of authors. I have a cat named Harry Bosch. But there was just something about this one!
Gemma has become one of my favorite detectives. She's so easy to identify with. I love that she's a working mom, and that she can share her perspectives about working and motherhood with the reader. She even admits that she is probably a better mom because she works, but she still struggles being away from young Grace. She's human and fallible. We also see her make some strides in her personal growth in this book. She's awesome and tough, and I really like her.
"Since having my daughter, time seemed to speed up at incredible rates."
The plot in this one is wonderful. It's creepy and builds up suspense. I was completely captivated. I love a book that keeps me guessing, and Shatter The Night definitely did that. There are a lot of suspects, and it was really fun to try to figure out what was going on and who might be our bad "guy(s)." The book weaves in the town's legacy, intertwining the history and its elders, so to speak. So you have a past that features Caleb and his ancestors; the police and their history; even Gemma's family. I don't want to go deeper than that, but Littlejohn weaves it all together flawlessly.
Overall, this was a great read. Interesting story, wonderful characters (the recurring characters are the best--please live forever, Tilly Krinkle), and a strong female lead. What more can you ask for? Maybe it's time to name a cat Gemma Monroe. :) 4.5 stars.
"We had summoned the evil to our town just as surely as if we'd mailed an invitation. We just didn't know it yet, and by the time we did know it, the damage would already be done. People would be killed. Lives would be changed."
This was such a good book, you guys. I've read the first three books in the Gemma Monroe series and really enjoyed them, and this was such an excellent addition to this series. To put it in perspective, I started reading this book about the same time as Michael Connelly's latest. I quickly realized that wouldn't work as they both involved plots with arson, and my small brain was getting addled. Well, I found this book so completely captivating that this was the one I kept with--and I mean, Connelly is my most favorite of authors. I have a cat named Harry Bosch. But there was just something about this one!
Gemma has become one of my favorite detectives. She's so easy to identify with. I love that she's a working mom, and that she can share her perspectives about working and motherhood with the reader. She even admits that she is probably a better mom because she works, but she still struggles being away from young Grace. She's human and fallible. We also see her make some strides in her personal growth in this book. She's awesome and tough, and I really like her.
"Since having my daughter, time seemed to speed up at incredible rates."
The plot in this one is wonderful. It's creepy and builds up suspense. I was completely captivated. I love a book that keeps me guessing, and Shatter The Night definitely did that. There are a lot of suspects, and it was really fun to try to figure out what was going on and who might be our bad "guy(s)." The book weaves in the town's legacy, intertwining the history and its elders, so to speak. So you have a past that features Caleb and his ancestors; the police and their history; even Gemma's family. I don't want to go deeper than that, but Littlejohn weaves it all together flawlessly.
Overall, this was a great read. Interesting story, wonderful characters (the recurring characters are the best--please live forever, Tilly Krinkle), and a strong female lead. What more can you ask for? Maybe it's time to name a cat Gemma Monroe. :) 4.5 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Big Short (2015) in Movies
Apr 19, 2020
Gets Better On Each Rewatch
Most of you reading this review remember the last time the U.S. had a downturn in it's economy - it was 2008 and the downturn was caused by a bubble that burst in the housing market. Michael Lewis' (author of MONEYBALL) book THE BIG SHORT attempted to explain what happend in lay man's terms. This books was considered "unfilmable" until the most unlikeliest of artists stepped in to make a wonderfully crafted and educational film that was also entertaining.
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Ghosts of War (2020) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
The ending is worth it
Ghosts of War follows a group of American soldiers as they make their way to take up post at a French chateau towards the end of the Second World War, and encounter much more than they bargained for in this slightly above average B movie.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.