Search
Search results
Hadley (567 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Jun 5, 2020
Mad Sweeney (1 more)
Gaiman's writing and descriptions
No character development (2 more)
Dehumanizes women
The ending
The gods of the old world still exist in Neil Gaiman's 2001 novel "American Gods."
A science fiction/ fantasy story set in today's America, American Gods tries to answer the question of what happens when people stop believing in the past gods, and start worshiping new ones?
Shadow is our main character, who we meet while he's attempting to get released from prison after three years of incarceration - - - afterall, he has a job, wife and life waiting for him on the outside. And even though he's built up a strong exterior while in prison, everything comes crashing down after he receives news that his wife and best friend have died in a car accident.
Cue Wednesday, an old, odd man who gives Shadow a job after his release from prison - - - with strings attached: Shadow can't ask any questions, he must protect his employer at all costs, and if people need to be hurt, he must hurt them. Although Wednesday doesn't tell him exactly what is going on, Shadow agrees to his duties and begins a road trip with the eccentric old man, meeting an array of colorful characters along the way. But soon, Shadow begins to realize that his employer may be a mythical god in disguise, yet, oddly Shadow never really questions it or anything in the entire book for that matter.
The novel takes an odd turn early on when Shadow's dead wife, Laura, comes back to life in a zombified way. While Shadow is staying in a cheap hotel room, and Wednesday sharing a room with a young hotel employee in another, Shadow sees his wife in the clothing she was buried in, but he doesn't flinch - - - he carries a very calm conversation with dead Laura, he even goes down to the lobby to buy her a pack of cigarettes, and the next morning, he still doesn't seem bothered by it when he sees her muddy footprints on the floor. Wednesday tries to convince Shadow it was a dream, but makes snarky remarks that tells Shadow that even he knows it wasn't a dream. The two simply move on on their road trip, no questions asked.
But during this road trip, Shadow's suspicions are confirmed. He gets to see not only Wednesday, but two others in their true god-form, and afterwards, Wednesday confirms that he is indeed the Norse god, Odin.
Gaiman's take on mythological gods living in today's society is interesting, but disappointing. From recognizable gods to the forgotten ones, readers with a liking to history would probably enjoy this story most.
American Gods centers on the question of what happens to gods when they are no longer worshipped, and Gaiman merely focuses on male gods, while making all female characters (gods and humans) either prostitutes and/or sexual objects which is really off-putting for me as a female reader. And Gaiman's character development in the novel for gods and humans is nowhere to be seen thus lending very little plot development that is actually believable or enjoyable. I was unable to bring myself to care about our main character, Shadow, nor the plight with his zombie wife.And speaking of Laura, the disappointing character traits makes her not just unlikable, but also an unnecessary character overall.
I just can't recommend this book: the novel is good for the first 100 pages, but you could easily skip the next 450 pages that is just filler, and not miss much of the story. Gaiman also dehumanizes women, introduces characters in a way that would make them seem an important part of the story to only drop them out of it as quickly as they came in, and the ending is just a huge disappointment. All in all, Gaiman had a great idea, but the execution he used was poorly done - - - some parts even seem like Gaiman wrote them in a completely different state of mind, contradicting story lines and character traits altogether.
I did, however, have three favorite characters that weren't utilized enough for me to rate the story higher than I have: Mad Sweeney, Ibis and Jacquel. Mad Sweeney is a giant leprechaun that can pull gold coins out of the air; Ibis and Jacquel are Anubis and Jackel from Egyptian mythology, who run a funeral home in Cairo, Illinois today.
American Gods takes place only over a few months, which is surprising with how long the novel is. But the story is a buildup with no climax. Most characters come and go before readers can even decide if they like them or not,and that paired up with severe lack of character development leaves most of the main characters pretty forgettable. With this special edition containing 1200 more words, the story is still not worth it in the end. Gaiman is still a great writer, but this is not the book to recommend to anyone who wants to begin reading his work.
A science fiction/ fantasy story set in today's America, American Gods tries to answer the question of what happens when people stop believing in the past gods, and start worshiping new ones?
Shadow is our main character, who we meet while he's attempting to get released from prison after three years of incarceration - - - afterall, he has a job, wife and life waiting for him on the outside. And even though he's built up a strong exterior while in prison, everything comes crashing down after he receives news that his wife and best friend have died in a car accident.
Cue Wednesday, an old, odd man who gives Shadow a job after his release from prison - - - with strings attached: Shadow can't ask any questions, he must protect his employer at all costs, and if people need to be hurt, he must hurt them. Although Wednesday doesn't tell him exactly what is going on, Shadow agrees to his duties and begins a road trip with the eccentric old man, meeting an array of colorful characters along the way. But soon, Shadow begins to realize that his employer may be a mythical god in disguise, yet, oddly Shadow never really questions it or anything in the entire book for that matter.
The novel takes an odd turn early on when Shadow's dead wife, Laura, comes back to life in a zombified way. While Shadow is staying in a cheap hotel room, and Wednesday sharing a room with a young hotel employee in another, Shadow sees his wife in the clothing she was buried in, but he doesn't flinch - - - he carries a very calm conversation with dead Laura, he even goes down to the lobby to buy her a pack of cigarettes, and the next morning, he still doesn't seem bothered by it when he sees her muddy footprints on the floor. Wednesday tries to convince Shadow it was a dream, but makes snarky remarks that tells Shadow that even he knows it wasn't a dream. The two simply move on on their road trip, no questions asked.
But during this road trip, Shadow's suspicions are confirmed. He gets to see not only Wednesday, but two others in their true god-form, and afterwards, Wednesday confirms that he is indeed the Norse god, Odin.
Gaiman's take on mythological gods living in today's society is interesting, but disappointing. From recognizable gods to the forgotten ones, readers with a liking to history would probably enjoy this story most.
American Gods centers on the question of what happens to gods when they are no longer worshipped, and Gaiman merely focuses on male gods, while making all female characters (gods and humans) either prostitutes and/or sexual objects which is really off-putting for me as a female reader. And Gaiman's character development in the novel for gods and humans is nowhere to be seen thus lending very little plot development that is actually believable or enjoyable. I was unable to bring myself to care about our main character, Shadow, nor the plight with his zombie wife.And speaking of Laura, the disappointing character traits makes her not just unlikable, but also an unnecessary character overall.
I just can't recommend this book: the novel is good for the first 100 pages, but you could easily skip the next 450 pages that is just filler, and not miss much of the story. Gaiman also dehumanizes women, introduces characters in a way that would make them seem an important part of the story to only drop them out of it as quickly as they came in, and the ending is just a huge disappointment. All in all, Gaiman had a great idea, but the execution he used was poorly done - - - some parts even seem like Gaiman wrote them in a completely different state of mind, contradicting story lines and character traits altogether.
I did, however, have three favorite characters that weren't utilized enough for me to rate the story higher than I have: Mad Sweeney, Ibis and Jacquel. Mad Sweeney is a giant leprechaun that can pull gold coins out of the air; Ibis and Jacquel are Anubis and Jackel from Egyptian mythology, who run a funeral home in Cairo, Illinois today.
American Gods takes place only over a few months, which is surprising with how long the novel is. But the story is a buildup with no climax. Most characters come and go before readers can even decide if they like them or not,and that paired up with severe lack of character development leaves most of the main characters pretty forgettable. With this special edition containing 1200 more words, the story is still not worth it in the end. Gaiman is still a great writer, but this is not the book to recommend to anyone who wants to begin reading his work.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Haven in Tabletop Games
May 1, 2021
Have you ever been a spirit of the forest fighting to keep it from falling into the hands of a greedy nearby city? No? What about the greedy nearby city – ever been one of those? No?? Then you are in luck because Haven is all about pitting the inhabitants of the Forest against the expansion of the nearby City in a fight for the rights to the mysterious Forest. Who will champion the battlefield and further their agendas? Read on to find out!
Haven is a two player area control card game with elements of classic games in an amazingly themed skin. Players will be playing cards jockeying for position to gain Lore from the forest Elementals by winning combats and lore challenges (a la Battle Line and Hanamikoji). These battles are won and forest Elementals influenced to gain control of shrines within the forest. By claiming the majority of shrines in an enclosed area players will be able to place ownership tokens that will assist in scoring at the end of the game. The player with the most points at game’s end will be the winner!
To setup, place the main game board between the players, give each player (Forest and City) their respective components, arrange each player’s starting hand of cards, randomly place forest Elementals per the rule book, and place out Lore Tokens between the players to act as the line. The game may now begin!
On a turn a player will take two actions to begin. These actions are playing a Lore Power card (once only per turn), placing a Seeker, or removing a Seeker from play. In Haven, players are attempting to claim shrines on the board in order to have majority in a region so they may place their tokens within that area. To achieve this, players will be battling for influence chips and Lore Tokens at the same time. Assigning Seekers to the Lore Tokens with more weapon symbols than the opponent will result in won influence chips to be placed on shrines. Owning the team of Seekers that matches or comes closest to the Lore Token’s number threshold will earn that player the Lore Token to be scored at the end of the game. A team of Seekers whose total numbers surpass the threshold on the Lore Token will bust and be disqualified from winning the Lore Token.
After two actions have been completed, players will draw two cards from any of the three decks in front of them. These are Seekers, Offerings, and Lore Power cards. These draws can be of any combination as long as the player is left with at least one Offering card at the end of their turn.
Once the player’s two cards have been drawn and added to their hand, the player will then add an Offering card to one of the Lore Tokens’ battlefield. For once a battlefield has three or more Offerings upon it, the battle for the influence chips and Lore Tokens will commence.
Elementals will be moving throughout the forest once battles are won to be conquered and pressed for precious Lore. Once an Elemental has no more shrines to visit or if one of the stacks of Lore Tokens ever runs out the game ends and points are tallied to determine if the Forest has been protected by the Forest player or if it falls to the City and its champion.
Components. This game is absolutely gorgeous, as most Ryan Laukat illustrated games are. The art style is recognizably Laukat, but the theme is a little darker than some. The board is nice sized to place between two people, and all cardboard bits are great quality. The Elemental standees are just fine (vs having minis), and all the cards are small and entirely functional. The cogeeples and leafeeples (grr) are nice touches and add a pop of color onto the board once placed. I have no issues with the components at all.
It’s obvious from my score above that I absolutely love Haven. From my very first learning game (I usually play each game solo but multi-handed before introducing to other players) I knew this is my type of game. The out-thinking of your opponents, and the playing Seekers to different Lore Tokens to win areas on the board are just wonderful here. Granted, I’ve never played Battle Line, but I have played Hanamikoji tons, and I prefer the way that mechanic is used in Haven. I have played so many area control games, but I like the movement of the Elementals from shrine to shrine as targets for players to claim on the board. I love that both sides are completely balanced and any one game could award victory to either side. Having agency over the draw piles from which you must draw cards is great. I simply love everything about this game.
It was a complete surprise to me that I would end up falling for this game as I initially picked up from my FLGS clearance rack. It also took me a long time to get it to the table, but once I did it was magic for me. If you and I share similarities in the games we enjoy I implore you to assign your Seekers to track down a copy of Haven. It is perfect for couples or just any two people who enjoy great games. Purple Phoenix Games gives Haven a very well-loved GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! Let’s show this hidden gem the love it deserves!
Haven is a two player area control card game with elements of classic games in an amazingly themed skin. Players will be playing cards jockeying for position to gain Lore from the forest Elementals by winning combats and lore challenges (a la Battle Line and Hanamikoji). These battles are won and forest Elementals influenced to gain control of shrines within the forest. By claiming the majority of shrines in an enclosed area players will be able to place ownership tokens that will assist in scoring at the end of the game. The player with the most points at game’s end will be the winner!
To setup, place the main game board between the players, give each player (Forest and City) their respective components, arrange each player’s starting hand of cards, randomly place forest Elementals per the rule book, and place out Lore Tokens between the players to act as the line. The game may now begin!
On a turn a player will take two actions to begin. These actions are playing a Lore Power card (once only per turn), placing a Seeker, or removing a Seeker from play. In Haven, players are attempting to claim shrines on the board in order to have majority in a region so they may place their tokens within that area. To achieve this, players will be battling for influence chips and Lore Tokens at the same time. Assigning Seekers to the Lore Tokens with more weapon symbols than the opponent will result in won influence chips to be placed on shrines. Owning the team of Seekers that matches or comes closest to the Lore Token’s number threshold will earn that player the Lore Token to be scored at the end of the game. A team of Seekers whose total numbers surpass the threshold on the Lore Token will bust and be disqualified from winning the Lore Token.
After two actions have been completed, players will draw two cards from any of the three decks in front of them. These are Seekers, Offerings, and Lore Power cards. These draws can be of any combination as long as the player is left with at least one Offering card at the end of their turn.
Once the player’s two cards have been drawn and added to their hand, the player will then add an Offering card to one of the Lore Tokens’ battlefield. For once a battlefield has three or more Offerings upon it, the battle for the influence chips and Lore Tokens will commence.
Elementals will be moving throughout the forest once battles are won to be conquered and pressed for precious Lore. Once an Elemental has no more shrines to visit or if one of the stacks of Lore Tokens ever runs out the game ends and points are tallied to determine if the Forest has been protected by the Forest player or if it falls to the City and its champion.
Components. This game is absolutely gorgeous, as most Ryan Laukat illustrated games are. The art style is recognizably Laukat, but the theme is a little darker than some. The board is nice sized to place between two people, and all cardboard bits are great quality. The Elemental standees are just fine (vs having minis), and all the cards are small and entirely functional. The cogeeples and leafeeples (grr) are nice touches and add a pop of color onto the board once placed. I have no issues with the components at all.
It’s obvious from my score above that I absolutely love Haven. From my very first learning game (I usually play each game solo but multi-handed before introducing to other players) I knew this is my type of game. The out-thinking of your opponents, and the playing Seekers to different Lore Tokens to win areas on the board are just wonderful here. Granted, I’ve never played Battle Line, but I have played Hanamikoji tons, and I prefer the way that mechanic is used in Haven. I have played so many area control games, but I like the movement of the Elementals from shrine to shrine as targets for players to claim on the board. I love that both sides are completely balanced and any one game could award victory to either side. Having agency over the draw piles from which you must draw cards is great. I simply love everything about this game.
It was a complete surprise to me that I would end up falling for this game as I initially picked up from my FLGS clearance rack. It also took me a long time to get it to the table, but once I did it was magic for me. If you and I share similarities in the games we enjoy I implore you to assign your Seekers to track down a copy of Haven. It is perfect for couples or just any two people who enjoy great games. Purple Phoenix Games gives Haven a very well-loved GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! Let’s show this hidden gem the love it deserves!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 26, 2021 (Updated Mar 26, 2021)
The movie as a whole is better than the original. (2 more)
The darker tone, R rating and additional scenes of violence and bloodshed.
The additional scenes for Cyborg's and Flash's story arc were welcome and did their characters justice.
4 hour length was way too long. (2 more)
The aspect ratio being in 4:3 instead of widescreen.
I didn't like certain things about the addition of Darkseid.
This Version Far Surpasses The Original Released
This movie was way better than the one that was released in theaters. I have to say it is a super long movie but honestly the time just flew by while I was watching it. I also broke it up into 2x two hour halves but another way would be to break it into 6 parts like it has been segmented into in the movie already with 5 chapters/parts and an epilogue. I think it helped that I didn't watch the original one right before I saw this one too. I didn't because I didn't want to be too "Justice Leagued" out and because I knew that it was going to be a 4 hour movie already. There were definitely some parts that felt like they needed to be included in the original for the story to make more sense and be more cohesive story-wise but there were more than a couple that were unnecessary and could have still been left on the cutting floor in my opinion. Now people that are expecting this to be a whole new movie will probably feel disappointed and that this movie is very much the same but fans of DC or the DCEU will more than likely enjoy this film over the original. I really like the way that they included more story and scenes for characters like Cyborg and Flash. I feel that they definitely helped in fleshing out their characters who got the short end of the stick the first time around and since their characters didn't have their own stand alone movies. I also feel they fixed the way Wonder Woman was portrayed and the tension between her and Batman in the movie. I know I could bring up more points here in this part of the review and although the movie was released in 2017 and most people have seen it already, I don't want to spoil it for those who might not have seen it and their first time is going to be this version. So with that being said I'll save the rest for the spoiler review section. And now for my score/rating, I'd have to say that this movie still had a lot of issues like unnecessary scenes and a long run time and some of them stick out like a sore thumb but I really liked it and say that this was a great movie, I'm probably a little bias because I generally enjoy comic book movies and like DC as well but I give it a 8/10. And this movie gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" but only if you are a fan of DC, the DC movies or film in general and have what it takes to sit through a 4 hour movie. Also I think it's worth getting a subscription to HBOMax, if only for 1 month at the price of $15 a month because if you sign up now you'll also be able to enjoy all the other content; plus you'll be able to see Godzilla vs Kong when it's released on March 31st and Mortal Kombat on April 16th.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was great. At 4 hours it was a monster of a film to get through but I'm definitely glad I watched it because it was way better than the first one that came out in theaters. One of the biggest reasons I think I liked it too was that it was rated R instead of PG-13 which is why we hear Batman and Cyborg drop F-bombs in the movie and why there is significantly more violence and bloodshed shown. The beginning was also different and had a different feel to it right away because in the original it had the memorial for Superman and in this one it doesn't. One thing that I didn't care for and thought was really annoying was how the movie wasn't widescreen but the 4:3 ratio but luckily I have a setting on my tv to change it to widescreen and I think that helped a lot. I know the composer was also changed from the original which I think was better but hard to say but the music definitely fit better. A big change was how the movie felt like it had less humor and really felt darker in tone. I think that at 4 hours long though they really added back or too many additional scenes that didn't need to be there and were completely unnecessary. The part after Bruce Wayne tries to recruit Aquaman and the Swedish or Norwegian girls sing that song was pretty unnecessary and could have been taken out as well as when Wonder Woman goes to the fire arrow place of the Amazons and walks down the stairs to look at the ancient murals. I liked how Bruce Wayne/Batman had more scenes with Alfred Pennyworth. The greatest addition to this movie in my opinion were the additional scenes for Cyborg's story arc and for Flash. These really helped flesh out their characters and do them justice especially for them not having had their own individual movies before this movie of forming the Justice League. I like how Flash saved Iris in that one scene in front of the pet shop. The flashbacks for Cyborg were really cool too and how they showed more of his Mom that we never got to see humanized him a lot more. One of my favorite things that they changed was black suit Superman, that was awesome that they added that, straight out of the comics. I liked how they showed more action scenes of Wonder Woman especially the extended version of her fighting off the terrorists in the museum or wherever it was they went to blow up the kids. I also liked how they changed the scenes of Batman and her and instead made it more about the team and them together. Another thing I really liked was how they showed Willem Dafoe's character Vulko and how he talked to Aquaman. That was one thing that really bothered me about the original was how Mera and Aquaman acted like they knew each other already but in Aquaman they barely met for the first time so it just really threw me off. That and how did he know to go to Atlantis right when Steppenwolf was about to attack. It also bothered me how the Amazons had such an epic battle against Steppenwolf to defend him taking the mother box and the Atlanteans didn't even put up a fight. With this correction they added the dialogue that Aquaman's brother Orm (Ocean Master) was already starting to make moves to take over the other kingdoms that he needed all his soldiers and wouldn't spare any to protect the mother box. I had mixed feelings about Steppenwolf's redesign but I think ultimately it was a good thing and you were able to see his motivations better and think he came out more of a badass and better bad guy. It was cool to see him communicate using the mother boxes and talk to Darkseid's other henchmen Desaad. One thing I really didn't like was how they did Darkseid dirty and showed him lose in the past instead of how it was Steppenwolf who lost in the original to the combined armies of Amazons, Greek Gods, humans and a Green Lantern. They didn't even show him use his Omega beams against them but he did use it against the Atlanteans in a vision of the future that Cyborg sees and it was awesome. I felt they watered down Darkseid from how hardcore he's supposed to be in the comics and cartoons, etc... I liked how in the end they showed how he had Desaad with him and Granny Goodness with him on the other side of the boom tube. I really didn't like how they had this whole thing about Darkseid not remembering which planet the mother boxes were on or where he had seen the "anti-life equation". It doesn't make sense to me that he would forget the planet where he got his ass kicked and almost died or at least was defeated. I heard a theory that maybe he didn't forget he just didn't want his followers to know he suffered a defeat and didn't let them know or killed everyone who knew but then it also didn't make sense that Steppenwolf remembered. It also never explained in this version how or why Steppenwolf fell out of favor with Darkseid and why he was trying so desperately to please him and his whole debt of having to conquer 100,000 worlds. I think this movie could have been cut down to 3 hours and been just as good, and think that 4 hours was a bit too much and that's considering 10% is in slow motion scenes (that's 24 minutes give or take). To me it looks like the success of this version of the movie could possibly generate enough buzz to get a sequel but Zack Snyder has already stated that he more than likely wouldn't come back to make it. As I said above I really dug this version and probably am a little biased and should maybe give it a point lower than what I scored/rated it but I give it a 8/10 and it get's my "Must See Seal of Approval".
https://youtu.be/EvpnLXHBYZU
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was great. At 4 hours it was a monster of a film to get through but I'm definitely glad I watched it because it was way better than the first one that came out in theaters. One of the biggest reasons I think I liked it too was that it was rated R instead of PG-13 which is why we hear Batman and Cyborg drop F-bombs in the movie and why there is significantly more violence and bloodshed shown. The beginning was also different and had a different feel to it right away because in the original it had the memorial for Superman and in this one it doesn't. One thing that I didn't care for and thought was really annoying was how the movie wasn't widescreen but the 4:3 ratio but luckily I have a setting on my tv to change it to widescreen and I think that helped a lot. I know the composer was also changed from the original which I think was better but hard to say but the music definitely fit better. A big change was how the movie felt like it had less humor and really felt darker in tone. I think that at 4 hours long though they really added back or too many additional scenes that didn't need to be there and were completely unnecessary. The part after Bruce Wayne tries to recruit Aquaman and the Swedish or Norwegian girls sing that song was pretty unnecessary and could have been taken out as well as when Wonder Woman goes to the fire arrow place of the Amazons and walks down the stairs to look at the ancient murals. I liked how Bruce Wayne/Batman had more scenes with Alfred Pennyworth. The greatest addition to this movie in my opinion were the additional scenes for Cyborg's story arc and for Flash. These really helped flesh out their characters and do them justice especially for them not having had their own individual movies before this movie of forming the Justice League. I like how Flash saved Iris in that one scene in front of the pet shop. The flashbacks for Cyborg were really cool too and how they showed more of his Mom that we never got to see humanized him a lot more. One of my favorite things that they changed was black suit Superman, that was awesome that they added that, straight out of the comics. I liked how they showed more action scenes of Wonder Woman especially the extended version of her fighting off the terrorists in the museum or wherever it was they went to blow up the kids. I also liked how they changed the scenes of Batman and her and instead made it more about the team and them together. Another thing I really liked was how they showed Willem Dafoe's character Vulko and how he talked to Aquaman. That was one thing that really bothered me about the original was how Mera and Aquaman acted like they knew each other already but in Aquaman they barely met for the first time so it just really threw me off. That and how did he know to go to Atlantis right when Steppenwolf was about to attack. It also bothered me how the Amazons had such an epic battle against Steppenwolf to defend him taking the mother box and the Atlanteans didn't even put up a fight. With this correction they added the dialogue that Aquaman's brother Orm (Ocean Master) was already starting to make moves to take over the other kingdoms that he needed all his soldiers and wouldn't spare any to protect the mother box. I had mixed feelings about Steppenwolf's redesign but I think ultimately it was a good thing and you were able to see his motivations better and think he came out more of a badass and better bad guy. It was cool to see him communicate using the mother boxes and talk to Darkseid's other henchmen Desaad. One thing I really didn't like was how they did Darkseid dirty and showed him lose in the past instead of how it was Steppenwolf who lost in the original to the combined armies of Amazons, Greek Gods, humans and a Green Lantern. They didn't even show him use his Omega beams against them but he did use it against the Atlanteans in a vision of the future that Cyborg sees and it was awesome. I felt they watered down Darkseid from how hardcore he's supposed to be in the comics and cartoons, etc... I liked how in the end they showed how he had Desaad with him and Granny Goodness with him on the other side of the boom tube. I really didn't like how they had this whole thing about Darkseid not remembering which planet the mother boxes were on or where he had seen the "anti-life equation". It doesn't make sense to me that he would forget the planet where he got his ass kicked and almost died or at least was defeated. I heard a theory that maybe he didn't forget he just didn't want his followers to know he suffered a defeat and didn't let them know or killed everyone who knew but then it also didn't make sense that Steppenwolf remembered. It also never explained in this version how or why Steppenwolf fell out of favor with Darkseid and why he was trying so desperately to please him and his whole debt of having to conquer 100,000 worlds. I think this movie could have been cut down to 3 hours and been just as good, and think that 4 hours was a bit too much and that's considering 10% is in slow motion scenes (that's 24 minutes give or take). To me it looks like the success of this version of the movie could possibly generate enough buzz to get a sequel but Zack Snyder has already stated that he more than likely wouldn't come back to make it. As I said above I really dug this version and probably am a little biased and should maybe give it a point lower than what I scored/rated it but I give it a 8/10 and it get's my "Must See Seal of Approval".
https://youtu.be/EvpnLXHBYZU
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
Donner Party tale (1 more)
Lots of mystery
Inconsistencies (1 more)
Changes characters referred name too much
Authors Preston and Child did such a great job on 'Old Bones' that once you start reading, you won't be able to put it down.
'Old Bones' follows two women, Nora Kelly and Corrie Swanson, with a small segment following a man named Clive Benton, all of who end up being intertwined within this one novel. The entire story revolves around the dark history of the cannibalistic Donner Party, while bringing in fictitious elements to give the readers a well-rounded adventure.
The story gets rolling after Benton visits Kelly with a historical diary that belonged to a member of the Donner Party- - - Kelly is a well-known archaeologist, while Benton is an accredited historian - - - Benton tells Kelly that the journal revealed a lost camp which had never been discovered by anyone, and that this camp could be one of the biggest archaeological finds of the century. While Kelly has to convince the director of the Archaeology Institute to fund the expedition, Benton springs on her and the director that there is a possibility of twenty million dollars worth of gold coins that belonged to a member of the Donner Party could still be located at this lost camp, and, of course, the director quickly agrees to fund the expedition.
Before this, I have never read a book by Preston and Child, but after reading 'Old Bones,' I am anxious to read their other works. The writing is fluid, and keeps the pace going quite well, and the transition between the two main characters is done flawlessly without any confusion as to whose view point you are viewing. The fictitious take on the historical Donner Party is done masterfully enough that even I had to go back to actual historic documents to see what was true and what was not. In one book, readers get dark history, paranormal elements, archaeology, thriller moments, mystery and suspense.
Although the story is a well-written one, there is one scene that could have had great potential, but nothing ever came of it: "Taking a few more steps, she passed through a particularly dense stand of trees and suddenly emerged into a roughly circular clearing. Odd: there was no reason for a break like this in such thick forest. She shone her light around, but there was nothing: just a soft bed of green moss, undisturbed by tracks, and a few scattered boulders." The way this scene is written leaves readers to believe that this may be important later on, but the area is unfortunately never mentioned again.
The story brings FBI agent Swanson into the lives of Benton and Kelly after a string of grave robberies and one presumed murder takes place; the former and latter have one thing in common: they are descendants of a member belonging to the Donner Party.
" 'So where do we fit into this?' asked Nora.
'The commonality I referred to. All four individuals were descended from a single person: a man named Parkin.'
Nora saw Clive start in surprise. 'Albert Parkin?' he asked. 'Of the Donner Party?'
'Exactly. And I've been led to understand he's one of the individuals in the camp you're excavating.' " Agent Swanson isn't exactly welcomed with open arms at the expedition.
The amount of archaeological understanding that was put into this novel is astounding. Preston and Child relay a lot of terms and devices used in the career field such as when Benton uses a bamboo pick to loosen the surface of a quad area and a whisk to gently work dirt away from findings. But this story isn't all archaeological terms, there's also a lot of great development among the characters.
These characters are written differently just enough that the reader should be able to tell them apart easily. Kelly is a leading archaeologist, who has led many different expeditions, but she is also still dealing with the grief of losing her husband years before. Benton is a historian that is a descendant of a member belonging to the Donner Party,and Swanson is a junior FBI agent that is eager to work on her first active case. Even minor characters are distinct among themselves.
Yet, the story is not flawless, there are quite a few inconsistencies, but the major problem I have found with the novel is the changing of characters' names in which they are addressed by. One scene, Nora would be referred to as Kelly - her last name - then more than usually the next paragraph, she would be called Nora. This happens with the main characters too often than it should, that it can confuse the reader and upset the flow of the story itself.
And unfortunately, the paranormal and horror elements are few and far between. We get an amazing retelling of the Donner Party tragedy not once, but throughout the story, reliving the cannibalism that took place, as well as the fictional element of gold leading to murder:
" 'Then you'll recall that when Wolfinger's wagon became stuck while crossing the Great Salt Lake Desert, two men - - - Reinhardt and Spitzer- - - volunteered to go back and help dig it out. Those two men returned, claiming Indians had killed Wolfinger.'
' Yes, yes, ' Dr. Fugit said, concealing a growing impatience.
'Well, that was a lie. Even at the time the members of the party were suspicious that something untoward had happened to Wolfinger. Reinhardt and Spitzer were viewed with a great deal if suspicion, and the two men afterwards kept to themselves and were somewhat ostracized by the rest. When Reinhardt was dying of starvation in the Lost Camp, he made a deathbed confession: Wolfinger had not been killed by Indians. Reinhardt and Spitzer had gone back, murdered Wolfinger, and taken his gold.' He paused. ' This information has been known to historians for over a century, but nobody, incredibly enough, thought to ask the next question: what happened to the gold? ' "
I highly recommend this book to fans of Thomas Harris; the writing is very similar and the character Swanson reminds me a lot of Harris' character Clarice Starling (refer to 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Hannibal'). I also recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history, especially that of dark history, such as the Donner Party tale.
'Old Bones' follows two women, Nora Kelly and Corrie Swanson, with a small segment following a man named Clive Benton, all of who end up being intertwined within this one novel. The entire story revolves around the dark history of the cannibalistic Donner Party, while bringing in fictitious elements to give the readers a well-rounded adventure.
The story gets rolling after Benton visits Kelly with a historical diary that belonged to a member of the Donner Party- - - Kelly is a well-known archaeologist, while Benton is an accredited historian - - - Benton tells Kelly that the journal revealed a lost camp which had never been discovered by anyone, and that this camp could be one of the biggest archaeological finds of the century. While Kelly has to convince the director of the Archaeology Institute to fund the expedition, Benton springs on her and the director that there is a possibility of twenty million dollars worth of gold coins that belonged to a member of the Donner Party could still be located at this lost camp, and, of course, the director quickly agrees to fund the expedition.
Before this, I have never read a book by Preston and Child, but after reading 'Old Bones,' I am anxious to read their other works. The writing is fluid, and keeps the pace going quite well, and the transition between the two main characters is done flawlessly without any confusion as to whose view point you are viewing. The fictitious take on the historical Donner Party is done masterfully enough that even I had to go back to actual historic documents to see what was true and what was not. In one book, readers get dark history, paranormal elements, archaeology, thriller moments, mystery and suspense.
Although the story is a well-written one, there is one scene that could have had great potential, but nothing ever came of it: "Taking a few more steps, she passed through a particularly dense stand of trees and suddenly emerged into a roughly circular clearing. Odd: there was no reason for a break like this in such thick forest. She shone her light around, but there was nothing: just a soft bed of green moss, undisturbed by tracks, and a few scattered boulders." The way this scene is written leaves readers to believe that this may be important later on, but the area is unfortunately never mentioned again.
The story brings FBI agent Swanson into the lives of Benton and Kelly after a string of grave robberies and one presumed murder takes place; the former and latter have one thing in common: they are descendants of a member belonging to the Donner Party.
" 'So where do we fit into this?' asked Nora.
'The commonality I referred to. All four individuals were descended from a single person: a man named Parkin.'
Nora saw Clive start in surprise. 'Albert Parkin?' he asked. 'Of the Donner Party?'
'Exactly. And I've been led to understand he's one of the individuals in the camp you're excavating.' " Agent Swanson isn't exactly welcomed with open arms at the expedition.
The amount of archaeological understanding that was put into this novel is astounding. Preston and Child relay a lot of terms and devices used in the career field such as when Benton uses a bamboo pick to loosen the surface of a quad area and a whisk to gently work dirt away from findings. But this story isn't all archaeological terms, there's also a lot of great development among the characters.
These characters are written differently just enough that the reader should be able to tell them apart easily. Kelly is a leading archaeologist, who has led many different expeditions, but she is also still dealing with the grief of losing her husband years before. Benton is a historian that is a descendant of a member belonging to the Donner Party,and Swanson is a junior FBI agent that is eager to work on her first active case. Even minor characters are distinct among themselves.
Yet, the story is not flawless, there are quite a few inconsistencies, but the major problem I have found with the novel is the changing of characters' names in which they are addressed by. One scene, Nora would be referred to as Kelly - her last name - then more than usually the next paragraph, she would be called Nora. This happens with the main characters too often than it should, that it can confuse the reader and upset the flow of the story itself.
And unfortunately, the paranormal and horror elements are few and far between. We get an amazing retelling of the Donner Party tragedy not once, but throughout the story, reliving the cannibalism that took place, as well as the fictional element of gold leading to murder:
" 'Then you'll recall that when Wolfinger's wagon became stuck while crossing the Great Salt Lake Desert, two men - - - Reinhardt and Spitzer- - - volunteered to go back and help dig it out. Those two men returned, claiming Indians had killed Wolfinger.'
' Yes, yes, ' Dr. Fugit said, concealing a growing impatience.
'Well, that was a lie. Even at the time the members of the party were suspicious that something untoward had happened to Wolfinger. Reinhardt and Spitzer were viewed with a great deal if suspicion, and the two men afterwards kept to themselves and were somewhat ostracized by the rest. When Reinhardt was dying of starvation in the Lost Camp, he made a deathbed confession: Wolfinger had not been killed by Indians. Reinhardt and Spitzer had gone back, murdered Wolfinger, and taken his gold.' He paused. ' This information has been known to historians for over a century, but nobody, incredibly enough, thought to ask the next question: what happened to the gold? ' "
I highly recommend this book to fans of Thomas Harris; the writing is very similar and the character Swanson reminds me a lot of Harris' character Clarice Starling (refer to 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Hannibal'). I also recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history, especially that of dark history, such as the Donner Party tale.
Darren (1599 KP) rated About a Boy (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: About a Boy starts as we meet Will Freeman (Grant) who lives the perfect life in his head, no job because of his father’s royalties, no responsibilities and no relationship, he can jump from woman to woman and now he has learnt about single mums, he new target. Marcus (Hoult) is a young boy whose single mother is battling depression and when the two become unlikely friends.
As the friendship builds between Will and Marcus, the two learn valuable life lessons with Will finally learning the serious side to life, one he had coasted over through his life.
Thoughts on About a Boy
Characters – Will is the playboy bachelor who has gone from woman to woman never taking responsibility in anything in his life, at the age of 38 he isn’t getting any younger and wants to look to a new location to meet women, which finally gives him a chance to look at his own life errors and start to make something from life. Marcus is a bullied young boy, his mother is battling depression and he never fits in at school, he sees a male role model in Will and starts to becoming friends with Will where he can starts to learn how to be who he should be. This character is drawn up wonderfully because he doesn’t understand the problems his mother is going through, while he is aware there is a problem it reflects in his everyday life. Fiona is the mother of Marcus, she is battle depression in her life while trying her hardest to stay positive for Marcus, a battle she isn’t always winning. Rachel is the woman that shows Will a new meaning to life, only she is the one that could shatter his new look too.
Performances – Hugh Grant is easily one of the most British actors out there, he gives one of his best performances here that will make you like his bad character. This role could easily be a look at the person people believed he would be in real life. Nicholas Hoult gives one of the greatest breakthrough performances for a young star and by seeing just how far he has gone since this shows the early talent he showed. Toni Collette gives us a supporting performance that is just as difficult to watch because of her characters problems that it is an essential performance to see. Rachel Weisz is good in her supporting role, she doesn’t need to do too much with her character though.
Story – The story here plays out as a middle-aged man needing to grow up, a young boy who needs a male role model and understand that life isn’t going to be perfect no matter how much you want to believe it. The growing up side of the story is the one that we get to focus on the most and is everything you expect it to be. There is however a much deeper and stronger side to this story we see, that comes from seeing how young Marcus doesn’t completely understand his mother’s depression and just wants somebody to talk to, while finding his own way to fix her. Now this is important because the mental health issues are a bigger talking point now and showing it through the eyes of an innocent young boy shows how difficult it can be to talk about and deal with, with him never truly understanding what the problems are.
Comedy/Romance – This film did get me laughing a lot, this is usually hard for any comedy movie, this has so many clever visions on life through the shallow nature Will has. The romance is the backburner because it shows us just how Will is trying to find women, even if one does change his life.
Settings – The film is set in London, we get the see the home environment, which for the most part are empty, the social life and everyday life, nothing is new.
Scene of the Movie – Be a Godfather question?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The generic bullies.
Final Thoughts – This is a brilliant comedy that gets everything right with the way the comedy is handled, we do get a big issue covered and is a film that people need to look back on and watch.
Overall: Must watch comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/26/about-a-boy-2002/
As the friendship builds between Will and Marcus, the two learn valuable life lessons with Will finally learning the serious side to life, one he had coasted over through his life.
Thoughts on About a Boy
Characters – Will is the playboy bachelor who has gone from woman to woman never taking responsibility in anything in his life, at the age of 38 he isn’t getting any younger and wants to look to a new location to meet women, which finally gives him a chance to look at his own life errors and start to make something from life. Marcus is a bullied young boy, his mother is battling depression and he never fits in at school, he sees a male role model in Will and starts to becoming friends with Will where he can starts to learn how to be who he should be. This character is drawn up wonderfully because he doesn’t understand the problems his mother is going through, while he is aware there is a problem it reflects in his everyday life. Fiona is the mother of Marcus, she is battle depression in her life while trying her hardest to stay positive for Marcus, a battle she isn’t always winning. Rachel is the woman that shows Will a new meaning to life, only she is the one that could shatter his new look too.
Performances – Hugh Grant is easily one of the most British actors out there, he gives one of his best performances here that will make you like his bad character. This role could easily be a look at the person people believed he would be in real life. Nicholas Hoult gives one of the greatest breakthrough performances for a young star and by seeing just how far he has gone since this shows the early talent he showed. Toni Collette gives us a supporting performance that is just as difficult to watch because of her characters problems that it is an essential performance to see. Rachel Weisz is good in her supporting role, she doesn’t need to do too much with her character though.
Story – The story here plays out as a middle-aged man needing to grow up, a young boy who needs a male role model and understand that life isn’t going to be perfect no matter how much you want to believe it. The growing up side of the story is the one that we get to focus on the most and is everything you expect it to be. There is however a much deeper and stronger side to this story we see, that comes from seeing how young Marcus doesn’t completely understand his mother’s depression and just wants somebody to talk to, while finding his own way to fix her. Now this is important because the mental health issues are a bigger talking point now and showing it through the eyes of an innocent young boy shows how difficult it can be to talk about and deal with, with him never truly understanding what the problems are.
Comedy/Romance – This film did get me laughing a lot, this is usually hard for any comedy movie, this has so many clever visions on life through the shallow nature Will has. The romance is the backburner because it shows us just how Will is trying to find women, even if one does change his life.
Settings – The film is set in London, we get the see the home environment, which for the most part are empty, the social life and everyday life, nothing is new.
Scene of the Movie – Be a Godfather question?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The generic bullies.
Final Thoughts – This is a brilliant comedy that gets everything right with the way the comedy is handled, we do get a big issue covered and is a film that people need to look back on and watch.
Overall: Must watch comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/26/about-a-boy-2002/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Another TOY STORY triumph for PIXAR
When I first heard that Pixar was going to make a 4th TOY STORY film, I found myself firmly in the camp of "why are they doing this? The 3rd film tied off the trilogy marvelously well and 4th film was not needed" But...I trust Pixar, and when it was revealed that both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were back on board after reading the script, my fears were alleviated quite a bit, but I still had some unease in the pit of my stomach.
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Paul Chesworth (3 KP) created a post
Feb 20, 2018
*** I received a free advance copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review ***
I have read Adrian Tchakovsky's Shadows of the Apt series and loved it.
I recently read his Dogs of War and enjoyed it. However I think this has somewhat tainted Ironclads for me.
Ireonclads sees us again in the near-future where the UK (read as England which annoyed me, being Scottish) has gained independence from Europe and subsequently gone bust and been bought over by the USA. The USA is likewise invading or at war with much of the rest of the world. These wars are now fought mainly in corporate interest (but then what's new *cough gulf war cough*) with armies of poorly equipped government soldiers being dent in to conflict occasionally supported by corporate playboys (generally the heir to the corporate fortunes) in their massive armoured scion suits (hence iron-clad) where they are fully protected from pretty much everything. These playboys tend to be captured by each other and ransomed back to their families, guffawing at their japes all the way.
The story sees one small group of US soldiers sent in to deepest darkest Sweden to rescue one such playboy who got himself too far ahead of the army and appears to have gone missing but without ransom (without his scion suit).
Being a short (200 pages) book worked well for me, I felt any more scenes or narrative would have felt like padding and this was its natural length.
However, for me this book felt like the notes or background story to Dogs of War and has suffered from my having read the latter. That book notes that wars used to be fought with machines and robots but moves on to cybernetically enhanced animals. This book felt like a side story or introduction to the Dogs of War world and little more.
Other aspects of the story chimed with that of Dogs of War as well and showed the author to be a little short of ideas - living beings with their brains/bodies cybernetically enhanced, swarms of insects used to disrupt communications, the USA being a little bit invadey and corrupt etc.
While this is not my usual cup of tea, I have enjoyed other sci-fi and felt this was a little slapdash. I didn't like the narrative style, finding the blasé, informal tones of the army sergeant both jarring and poorly executed. And while I don't need to be spoon-fed the plot, I found some elements badly or barely explained (what DID the Finns do?!) and the major plot twist neither surprising nor worth the wait.
Tchaikovsky can describe a battle scene well and you get a feel for the whole battle as well as the key conflicts, so the action itself is fairly gripping at times. However, the finished article left me feeling a bit meh.
All in all I am glad I read this, but had expected better things from his sci-fi given Children of Time won the Arthur C Clarke award.
I have read Adrian Tchakovsky's Shadows of the Apt series and loved it.
I recently read his Dogs of War and enjoyed it. However I think this has somewhat tainted Ironclads for me.
Ireonclads sees us again in the near-future where the UK (read as England which annoyed me, being Scottish) has gained independence from Europe and subsequently gone bust and been bought over by the USA. The USA is likewise invading or at war with much of the rest of the world. These wars are now fought mainly in corporate interest (but then what's new *cough gulf war cough*) with armies of poorly equipped government soldiers being dent in to conflict occasionally supported by corporate playboys (generally the heir to the corporate fortunes) in their massive armoured scion suits (hence iron-clad) where they are fully protected from pretty much everything. These playboys tend to be captured by each other and ransomed back to their families, guffawing at their japes all the way.
The story sees one small group of US soldiers sent in to deepest darkest Sweden to rescue one such playboy who got himself too far ahead of the army and appears to have gone missing but without ransom (without his scion suit).
Being a short (200 pages) book worked well for me, I felt any more scenes or narrative would have felt like padding and this was its natural length.
However, for me this book felt like the notes or background story to Dogs of War and has suffered from my having read the latter. That book notes that wars used to be fought with machines and robots but moves on to cybernetically enhanced animals. This book felt like a side story or introduction to the Dogs of War world and little more.
Other aspects of the story chimed with that of Dogs of War as well and showed the author to be a little short of ideas - living beings with their brains/bodies cybernetically enhanced, swarms of insects used to disrupt communications, the USA being a little bit invadey and corrupt etc.
While this is not my usual cup of tea, I have enjoyed other sci-fi and felt this was a little slapdash. I didn't like the narrative style, finding the blasé, informal tones of the army sergeant both jarring and poorly executed. And while I don't need to be spoon-fed the plot, I found some elements badly or barely explained (what DID the Finns do?!) and the major plot twist neither surprising nor worth the wait.
Tchaikovsky can describe a battle scene well and you get a feel for the whole battle as well as the key conflicts, so the action itself is fairly gripping at times. However, the finished article left me feeling a bit meh.
All in all I am glad I read this, but had expected better things from his sci-fi given Children of Time won the Arthur C Clarke award.