Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Klaus (2019) in Movies
Jul 28, 2020 (Updated Dec 24, 2020)
Visually Interesting - with strong voice performances
We have seen the Origin story of Santa Claus many times and in many ways over the years, so it was with some trepidation that the BankoMarquis ventured forth to check out the Netflix original film KLAUS which covers some very similar territory.
And I need not worry, for KLAUS is a visually interesting film with some very good voice performances that elevates a (relatively) by-the-book story into quite a delightful film experience.
Directed and Written by Sergio Pablos - a veteran animator with credits like Disney’s Tarzan, Despicable Me, Rio and Smallfoot - KLAUS tells the tale of…Jesper, a mailman who is also a privileged youth who’s lackluster ways runs him afoul of his father and he is banished to a remote, Northern country where her runs afoul of…KLAUS.
And…you can probably figure out where the story goes from there, but it is not the story - or the destination - that matters, it is the journey. And…what a wonderful journey it is.
Let’s start with the best part - this film is GORGEOUS to look at. Pablos uses hand drawn animation with lighting techniques taken from digital animation and the result is crisp, clean and stunning to look at. I will watch this film again, just to look at the visuals.
As for the voice casting - it is stellar - with one, small quibble. The great J.K. Simmon is…well…GREAT as Klaus. His deep baritone voice is perfect for the enigmatic hermit that is hiding secrets - and a heart of gold. Rashida Jones, Will Sasso, Norm MacDonald and the always brilliant Joan Cusack add their tremendous voices to the proceedings very well. My only quibble is with the work of Jason Schwartzman as Jesper, the character we follow throughout the film. I found his voice and character grating at times (I know this is on purpose, so Schwartzman did a good job in his work) but, I would have liked to have Pablos “tone down” the lead character just a bit.
But that is a “quibble” in a very entertaining movie that is a wonderful family film that can be enjoyed on different levels - and for different reasons - by children and adults alike.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I need not worry, for KLAUS is a visually interesting film with some very good voice performances that elevates a (relatively) by-the-book story into quite a delightful film experience.
Directed and Written by Sergio Pablos - a veteran animator with credits like Disney’s Tarzan, Despicable Me, Rio and Smallfoot - KLAUS tells the tale of…Jesper, a mailman who is also a privileged youth who’s lackluster ways runs him afoul of his father and he is banished to a remote, Northern country where her runs afoul of…KLAUS.
And…you can probably figure out where the story goes from there, but it is not the story - or the destination - that matters, it is the journey. And…what a wonderful journey it is.
Let’s start with the best part - this film is GORGEOUS to look at. Pablos uses hand drawn animation with lighting techniques taken from digital animation and the result is crisp, clean and stunning to look at. I will watch this film again, just to look at the visuals.
As for the voice casting - it is stellar - with one, small quibble. The great J.K. Simmon is…well…GREAT as Klaus. His deep baritone voice is perfect for the enigmatic hermit that is hiding secrets - and a heart of gold. Rashida Jones, Will Sasso, Norm MacDonald and the always brilliant Joan Cusack add their tremendous voices to the proceedings very well. My only quibble is with the work of Jason Schwartzman as Jesper, the character we follow throughout the film. I found his voice and character grating at times (I know this is on purpose, so Schwartzman did a good job in his work) but, I would have liked to have Pablos “tone down” the lead character just a bit.
But that is a “quibble” in a very entertaining movie that is a wonderful family film that can be enjoyed on different levels - and for different reasons - by children and adults alike.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Greenlights
10.0
Rate It
Book
From the Academy Award®–winning actor, an unconventional memoir filled with raucous stories,...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated He Gets That From Me in Books
Sep 30, 2021
Maggie is a young mom who dreams of going to college. But her current life--toiling at a grocery store while her boyfriend works as a chef--can't support her dreams. When she sees an ad about becoming a surrogate, and sees how much it could pay, Maggie wonders if this could solve all her problems. Her boyfriend, Nick, is reluctant, but Maggie decides to go for it. She winds up being selected by a loving gay couple, Chip and Donovan, from New York. Maggie delivers their beautiful twin boys, and everyone is happy. But ten years later, she gets a call from the fertility clinic that will change her life.
This is a mesmerizing book that pulls you in from the beginning. It's extremely easy-to-read, and the story basically tells itself. I was immediately attached to Chip and Donovan and their family. The story is told from Donovan's POV and Maggie's. Through Donovan, we learn about their family, their pasts, and how much they love their boys. When they end up having DNA tests done on the twins, it upends things and forces Donovan, especially, to rethink so much of what he took for granted. I wanted to like Maggie more than I did; she didn't come across as a consistent character, which was frustrating for me.
DNA stories are certainly the fad the right now. My biggest issue with this book, was, paradoxically, the part I also liked the most, and that was the inclusion of Donovan and Chip's story. As best I can tell, Friedland is a straight woman, and, as a member of the LGBTQIA community, I'm not sure I felt fully comfortable with her including a gay couple in her story. We have enough problems with our families being accepted without them being told in such a "Lifetime movie" fashion--especially by someone who isn't part of our community. This story could have been told just as easily without including a gay couple. It's probably something that wouldn't occur to most readers, but it just rubbed me the wrong way.
Otherwise, this book does make you think and it makes some good points about the meaning of family. It's a fast read, but I just felt a little off overall when I finished it. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from SparkPress and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
This is a mesmerizing book that pulls you in from the beginning. It's extremely easy-to-read, and the story basically tells itself. I was immediately attached to Chip and Donovan and their family. The story is told from Donovan's POV and Maggie's. Through Donovan, we learn about their family, their pasts, and how much they love their boys. When they end up having DNA tests done on the twins, it upends things and forces Donovan, especially, to rethink so much of what he took for granted. I wanted to like Maggie more than I did; she didn't come across as a consistent character, which was frustrating for me.
DNA stories are certainly the fad the right now. My biggest issue with this book, was, paradoxically, the part I also liked the most, and that was the inclusion of Donovan and Chip's story. As best I can tell, Friedland is a straight woman, and, as a member of the LGBTQIA community, I'm not sure I felt fully comfortable with her including a gay couple in her story. We have enough problems with our families being accepted without them being told in such a "Lifetime movie" fashion--especially by someone who isn't part of our community. This story could have been told just as easily without including a gay couple. It's probably something that wouldn't occur to most readers, but it just rubbed me the wrong way.
Otherwise, this book does make you think and it makes some good points about the meaning of family. It's a fast read, but I just felt a little off overall when I finished it. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from SparkPress and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Debbiereadsbook (1764 KP) rated The Demon Bodyguard in Books
Apr 20, 2025
Zeke flips from stalker to protector on a penny.
Independent reviewer for BookSirens, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This book is about Zeke, who is Mal's brother from The Demon Undertaker. I would recommend that you read that book before this one. While not strictly necessary, I think it will give you a better picture of the relationship between Mal and Zeke.
Zeke takes a job that will net him a million Euros. But watching Rory is boring, until Rory catches Zeke watching him and Zeke's demon half shouts MINE! Then it becomes a matter of keeping Rory and his daughter safe. The danger, however, is not all it seems!
What I loved most about this, was that while there was that MINE moment, it is a while coming. And once it comes, Zeke flips from stalker to protector on a penny. His whole self upends itself at that realisation, and I loved that he had to talk to Mal, who pretty much laughed his head off! How Zeke was with Mal in The Demon Undertaker is so far removed from how he now feels, it's uncanny.
The danger never really lets up for Rory and his daughter. And I loved that Rory *TRIED* to give his father in law the benefit of the doubt, but it was thrown back at him. I did like that they let it play out, without Carlotta ever knowing the truth about her grandfather.
Dante, from The Devil's Dilemma pops up, as well as Mal and Jason. I loved how Adams has seemlessly joined three books, from 2 different series, but somehow managed to follow them on from one another!
The story line is dark here, but there are some lighter moments, mostly with Mal winding Zeke up. Steamy and smexy, but deeply emotional in places. Rory has a lot on his shoulders and he needs Zeke but doesn't want to disrespect his dead wife.
I quote directly from my review about The Demon Undertaker:
Adams is an author I have followed from the very beginning. I can honestly say, I'm loving the newer stuff she writes, as she continues to hone her craft. THIS book was no exception. THIS is my favourite book so far. I'm fairly certain, I'll be saying that for the next one too!
5 full and shiny stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This book is about Zeke, who is Mal's brother from The Demon Undertaker. I would recommend that you read that book before this one. While not strictly necessary, I think it will give you a better picture of the relationship between Mal and Zeke.
Zeke takes a job that will net him a million Euros. But watching Rory is boring, until Rory catches Zeke watching him and Zeke's demon half shouts MINE! Then it becomes a matter of keeping Rory and his daughter safe. The danger, however, is not all it seems!
What I loved most about this, was that while there was that MINE moment, it is a while coming. And once it comes, Zeke flips from stalker to protector on a penny. His whole self upends itself at that realisation, and I loved that he had to talk to Mal, who pretty much laughed his head off! How Zeke was with Mal in The Demon Undertaker is so far removed from how he now feels, it's uncanny.
The danger never really lets up for Rory and his daughter. And I loved that Rory *TRIED* to give his father in law the benefit of the doubt, but it was thrown back at him. I did like that they let it play out, without Carlotta ever knowing the truth about her grandfather.
Dante, from The Devil's Dilemma pops up, as well as Mal and Jason. I loved how Adams has seemlessly joined three books, from 2 different series, but somehow managed to follow them on from one another!
The story line is dark here, but there are some lighter moments, mostly with Mal winding Zeke up. Steamy and smexy, but deeply emotional in places. Rory has a lot on his shoulders and he needs Zeke but doesn't want to disrespect his dead wife.
I quote directly from my review about The Demon Undertaker:
Adams is an author I have followed from the very beginning. I can honestly say, I'm loving the newer stuff she writes, as she continues to hone her craft. THIS book was no exception. THIS is my favourite book so far. I'm fairly certain, I'll be saying that for the next one too!
5 full and shiny stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Debbiereadsbook (1764 KP) rated Opposed Desires (Rehoboth Pact #2) in Books
Nov 18, 2021
love that we had to wait for Seina to give in!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 2 in the Rehoboth Pact series, but it's not necessary to have rea book 1, Confined Desires, before this. Not necessary, but I would strongly RECOMMEND you do. Aubrey revokes the Pact in that book, and you need to know why.
Aubrey is a player. She goes out and gets one she wants, and there are no repeats. She is the polar opposite of Selina, who would rather go without than do what Aubrey does. In a moment of something totally out of character for BOTH these women, there is a fundamental shift in their relationship. But this is a vacation, and the real world encroaches.
I really enjoyed book 1, and I really enjoyed this one, for different reasons.
This is HEAVY on the emotional aspect from both these women. Aubs mum is ill, and she is worried that things are really bad again. Selina is lonely: she wants someone to love her, just as she is. And I cried a bit for both Aubs and Selina, I really did. They are both a little bit broken by their life experiences and actually talking to each other, rather than sniping at each other, starts them on a path neither is quite prepared for.
I love love LOVED that I had to wait for Selina to give in to Aubrey. But equally than AUBREY was the one who really wanted to wait. Aubrey usually had a different girl every night, but a whole vacation week, without a single one? Totally unheard of and I loved that her friends noticed. The smexy stuff is not especially explicit, but I'm finding I like that in these books. There is more to a relationship than sex and these women are finding that.
Skye and Mia (from book 1) are here, but also Kyle, who is the third in this little trio of friends. We didn't meet her before and she has a tale to tell, I can feel it. Her book is next, but not til bloody January! Kyle revokes the Pact here.
creeping up to 4.5 stars, (but rounding down to 4 for the blog, sorry!) can't quite stetch to five, but maybe Kyle can squeeze that extra bit outta me!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This is book 2 in the Rehoboth Pact series, but it's not necessary to have rea book 1, Confined Desires, before this. Not necessary, but I would strongly RECOMMEND you do. Aubrey revokes the Pact in that book, and you need to know why.
Aubrey is a player. She goes out and gets one she wants, and there are no repeats. She is the polar opposite of Selina, who would rather go without than do what Aubrey does. In a moment of something totally out of character for BOTH these women, there is a fundamental shift in their relationship. But this is a vacation, and the real world encroaches.
I really enjoyed book 1, and I really enjoyed this one, for different reasons.
This is HEAVY on the emotional aspect from both these women. Aubs mum is ill, and she is worried that things are really bad again. Selina is lonely: she wants someone to love her, just as she is. And I cried a bit for both Aubs and Selina, I really did. They are both a little bit broken by their life experiences and actually talking to each other, rather than sniping at each other, starts them on a path neither is quite prepared for.
I love love LOVED that I had to wait for Selina to give in to Aubrey. But equally than AUBREY was the one who really wanted to wait. Aubrey usually had a different girl every night, but a whole vacation week, without a single one? Totally unheard of and I loved that her friends noticed. The smexy stuff is not especially explicit, but I'm finding I like that in these books. There is more to a relationship than sex and these women are finding that.
Skye and Mia (from book 1) are here, but also Kyle, who is the third in this little trio of friends. We didn't meet her before and she has a tale to tell, I can feel it. Her book is next, but not til bloody January! Kyle revokes the Pact here.
creeping up to 4.5 stars, (but rounding down to 4 for the blog, sorry!) can't quite stetch to five, but maybe Kyle can squeeze that extra bit outta me!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Nadya R (9 KP) rated The Nightingale in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I am speechless. I finished the book 15 minutes ago, but I am still staring in the wall and tears are falling down my cheeks. It’s been a while since I’ve been that touched by a book. This story and this two sisters turn upside down the idea of the women’s role in WWII.
Kristin Hanna leads us through the dangerous way of Isabelle Rossignol - The Nightingale why fly to the freedom. She is one of the most active person in the Resistance. Fully opposite to her is her sister Vianne. She is humble and mild tempered she doesn’t want to be a hero. Her only wish is to survive the war together with her family. The Rossignol sisters were abandoned by their father (veteran of WWI) after their mother dead. Soon Vianne met Antoine and has a family with him. While Isabelle’s rebellious temper doesn’t allow her to accept her father decision and escape from every boarding school, she was sent to, and continue to go back to her father and to fight for his love. Exactly this part of her character made her The Nightingale- a woman equal to the men.
"Women were integral to the Resistance. Why couldn't men see that?"
On the other side Vianne doesn’t want to take part in the war. She doesn’t rise her voice, doesn’t ask questions. She’s been comfortable to the Nazis. And that is her point- been quiet and invisible means that you will survive. But as much as you want to close your eyes for injustice there is a breaking point - all these brutalities and injustice make us leave our ‘comfortable’ lives in the name of hundreds of saved lives.
The rebellious in Isabelle takes her to the centre of the French Resistance. First- used as a courier, she prove herself and began an important member in no time. Exposing her life to danger, she leads a pilot after a pilot through the high peaks of Pyrenees to their freedom. Meanwhile Vianne is living with Nazi officer, when one day the war bent her. She initiated a mission to save the Jews children.
"Vianne started them off on a song and they picked it up instantly, singing loudly as they clapped and bounced and skipped. Did they even notice the bombed out buildings they passed? The smoking piles of ribble that had once been homes? Or was destruction the ordinary view of their childhoods, unremarkable, unnoticeable."
But the war left its mark on all these kids, forced them to grow up fast and even in very young age they have already seen all these misfortunes in the world.
"Really, Maman? How long must we pretend?" The sadness-and the anger-in those beautiful eyes was heartbreaking. Vianne apparently had hidden nothing from this child who'd lost her childhood to war."
The author doesn’t save anything. At the end of the book she takes us to the Ravensbrück - the concentration camp in Germany for women why took an action against the Nazis. It’s known as one of the most brutal of them all. The picture, the author shows us, are breathtaking. All these tortures, rapes all these things that they did to women... I kinda felt it son deep and personal. I am not really able to write about this.
And at the end let’s speak about the love in the book. Here you can find lots of love.
Love of country.
Mother love.
Sisters love.
Love in the wartime is strong but faded at the same time. Set on the background, love is there but she(love) realises that in this times there is no place for blind love stories. On other hand this love is even stronger.
Every stolen second.
Every kiss is unspoken ‘Goodbye'.
Every meeting may be the last one.
".. a broken heart hurts as badly in wartime as in peace. Say good-bye to your young man well."
When it comes to war we imagine all these men risking their lives in the name of their country. But this is the story about war but trough women’s view. A women’s war on the shadow. Taking a risk of being caught and executed they keep delivering the message between the Resistance members. They are the connection between all pieces of the puzzle.
"Men tell stories. Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
Kristin Hanna leads us through the dangerous way of Isabelle Rossignol - The Nightingale why fly to the freedom. She is one of the most active person in the Resistance. Fully opposite to her is her sister Vianne. She is humble and mild tempered she doesn’t want to be a hero. Her only wish is to survive the war together with her family. The Rossignol sisters were abandoned by their father (veteran of WWI) after their mother dead. Soon Vianne met Antoine and has a family with him. While Isabelle’s rebellious temper doesn’t allow her to accept her father decision and escape from every boarding school, she was sent to, and continue to go back to her father and to fight for his love. Exactly this part of her character made her The Nightingale- a woman equal to the men.
"Women were integral to the Resistance. Why couldn't men see that?"
On the other side Vianne doesn’t want to take part in the war. She doesn’t rise her voice, doesn’t ask questions. She’s been comfortable to the Nazis. And that is her point- been quiet and invisible means that you will survive. But as much as you want to close your eyes for injustice there is a breaking point - all these brutalities and injustice make us leave our ‘comfortable’ lives in the name of hundreds of saved lives.
The rebellious in Isabelle takes her to the centre of the French Resistance. First- used as a courier, she prove herself and began an important member in no time. Exposing her life to danger, she leads a pilot after a pilot through the high peaks of Pyrenees to their freedom. Meanwhile Vianne is living with Nazi officer, when one day the war bent her. She initiated a mission to save the Jews children.
"Vianne started them off on a song and they picked it up instantly, singing loudly as they clapped and bounced and skipped. Did they even notice the bombed out buildings they passed? The smoking piles of ribble that had once been homes? Or was destruction the ordinary view of their childhoods, unremarkable, unnoticeable."
But the war left its mark on all these kids, forced them to grow up fast and even in very young age they have already seen all these misfortunes in the world.
"Really, Maman? How long must we pretend?" The sadness-and the anger-in those beautiful eyes was heartbreaking. Vianne apparently had hidden nothing from this child who'd lost her childhood to war."
The author doesn’t save anything. At the end of the book she takes us to the Ravensbrück - the concentration camp in Germany for women why took an action against the Nazis. It’s known as one of the most brutal of them all. The picture, the author shows us, are breathtaking. All these tortures, rapes all these things that they did to women... I kinda felt it son deep and personal. I am not really able to write about this.
And at the end let’s speak about the love in the book. Here you can find lots of love.
Love of country.
Mother love.
Sisters love.
Love in the wartime is strong but faded at the same time. Set on the background, love is there but she(love) realises that in this times there is no place for blind love stories. On other hand this love is even stronger.
Every stolen second.
Every kiss is unspoken ‘Goodbye'.
Every meeting may be the last one.
".. a broken heart hurts as badly in wartime as in peace. Say good-bye to your young man well."
When it comes to war we imagine all these men risking their lives in the name of their country. But this is the story about war but trough women’s view. A women’s war on the shadow. Taking a risk of being caught and executed they keep delivering the message between the Resistance members. They are the connection between all pieces of the puzzle.
"Men tell stories. Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth in Books
Sep 7, 2017
Amazing, easy-to-read memoir
Wow. Just wow. I woke up far earlier than I wanted to this morning, so I picked up one of the nonfiction books I had from the library, expecting it to put me back to sleep. Three hours later I was still awake, nearly done with the book, and absolutely enthralled. I’m not sure why I thought it would be otherwise – I’d been one of the millions fascinated with Hadfield’s videos and tweets when he was Commander of the ISS. His particular voice is very clear throughout this book. In 284 pages he takes us from his childhood, through his career path to becoming an astronaut, to his 5 months in the International Space Station, and back home. Nothing felt rushed, nothing felt like it didn’t get the attention it deserved. I’m pretty sure this is going to be one of my favorite books of 2017 – I have several months to read more things, but this book just absolutely blew me away.
It does appeal to how I like to read about science, though. I love reading about scientists. How they worked, how they made their discoveries, the paths they took. Who they were. I’m less interested in the actual science. This is part of why I loved A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, so much. I borrowed that book from the library and read it cover to cover, fascinated. Finally had to buy my own copy.
Hadfield took space exploration and made it accessible to everyone. According to the book, he didn’t even quite realize how big of an impact he was making at first. But between tweeting pictures from the ISS, making videos of how different life was in space, and making music videos, he really did become the most well-known astronaut of our generation. I remember putting his video of I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing) on repeat when it came out – and it STILL gives me chills today.
He only briefly talked about Is Somebody Singing in the book, which I found surprising, given it was the one that hit me the hardest. He spent more time talking about filming and recording Space Oddity – which does have 36 million views, to I.S.S.’s 2 million. So I suppose that makes sense! (I'm going to attach both videos to the book page.)
One thing he keeps coming back to in his book is his philosophy of trying to be a zero. That doesn’t sound very ambitious on the surface – but what he means is you can be one of three things in a group. You can be a negative impact (a -1) a neutral impact (a zero) or a positive impact (a +1). If you try to be a +1, it’s far likelier that you’ll try too hard, fuck up, and instead become a negative impact. So aim to be a zero. And most of the time you’ll wind up as a positive impact. I thought that was a very unique philosophy.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
It does appeal to how I like to read about science, though. I love reading about scientists. How they worked, how they made their discoveries, the paths they took. Who they were. I’m less interested in the actual science. This is part of why I loved A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, so much. I borrowed that book from the library and read it cover to cover, fascinated. Finally had to buy my own copy.
Hadfield took space exploration and made it accessible to everyone. According to the book, he didn’t even quite realize how big of an impact he was making at first. But between tweeting pictures from the ISS, making videos of how different life was in space, and making music videos, he really did become the most well-known astronaut of our generation. I remember putting his video of I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing) on repeat when it came out – and it STILL gives me chills today.
He only briefly talked about Is Somebody Singing in the book, which I found surprising, given it was the one that hit me the hardest. He spent more time talking about filming and recording Space Oddity – which does have 36 million views, to I.S.S.’s 2 million. So I suppose that makes sense! (I'm going to attach both videos to the book page.)
One thing he keeps coming back to in his book is his philosophy of trying to be a zero. That doesn’t sound very ambitious on the surface – but what he means is you can be one of three things in a group. You can be a negative impact (a -1) a neutral impact (a zero) or a positive impact (a +1). If you try to be a +1, it’s far likelier that you’ll try too hard, fuck up, and instead become a negative impact. So aim to be a zero. And most of the time you’ll wind up as a positive impact. I thought that was a very unique philosophy.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated You Must Not Miss in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Magpie Lewis has been abandoned. Her father left. Then her sister, Eryn, too. Now it's just Magpie and her mom. Who truly isn't really present, as she drowns herself in booze and a haze of alcoholism. Magpie's sister left the same night as Brandon Phipps's party--after which Magpie's longtime friendship with Allison ended, and Magpie was branded a slut and left to be an outcast at school. So she starts writing in a yellow notebook, creating a world called Near. It's Magpie's magical place, where everything is perfect: no cheating father, no drunk mom, no missing sister, and no horrific school experiences. She thinks up Near so clearly, so fully, that she wills it into existence, and Magpie realizes that in Near, she can have it all: even revenge on those who have hurt her.
"There was one month left of her sophomore year of high school, and she had decided, after a mountain of evidence to support it, that the entire world was a joke."
I just love Katrina Leno, and her beautiful writing. You Must Not Miss is no exception: it's a poetic, stark take on high school friendship, rape culture, and the ties that bind us. The story is a clever variation of "One for Sorrow." Magpie is our main character and takes center stage: it's hard not to feel sympathetic for this poor abandoned girl--with no family who cares for her and, for a while, no friends.
"If you give a name to an impossible thing, does it make the impossible thing any less impossible?
But then the story takes a dramatic, dark twist--as Magpie creates Near both in her mind and in reality--and as Magpie's portal to another world takes true shape, we see our character find strength before our very eyes. I won't lie, I'm not sure this book is for everyone. It reminded me in some ways of a Maggie Stiefvater novel. It's true magical realism, and there's a suspension of disbelief to be had, to be sure. But it's a book that I feel like Leno was meant to be write. Her way of eviscerating rape culture, misogyny, and more is so adept, so searing. It is a call to arms to those who are not believed, who are ignored and mocked, who are the ones who see their lives ruined when the attackers run free.
In this way, You Must Not Miss is a strong, complex book tackling a tough topic. It may be difficult for some that this topic is underneath the magical world of Near, but I liked how that was what Magpie needed to deal with all that happened to her. Beware, this book is brutal at times (and yes, there's a trigger warning for rape/sexual assault). But it's beautifully written, too. It's complicated, much like its subject matter and its protagonist, who is still trying to figure herself out, as well. It's a different read, but if you're willing to give it a try, I think you'll be glad you did. 4 stars.
"There was one month left of her sophomore year of high school, and she had decided, after a mountain of evidence to support it, that the entire world was a joke."
I just love Katrina Leno, and her beautiful writing. You Must Not Miss is no exception: it's a poetic, stark take on high school friendship, rape culture, and the ties that bind us. The story is a clever variation of "One for Sorrow." Magpie is our main character and takes center stage: it's hard not to feel sympathetic for this poor abandoned girl--with no family who cares for her and, for a while, no friends.
"If you give a name to an impossible thing, does it make the impossible thing any less impossible?
But then the story takes a dramatic, dark twist--as Magpie creates Near both in her mind and in reality--and as Magpie's portal to another world takes true shape, we see our character find strength before our very eyes. I won't lie, I'm not sure this book is for everyone. It reminded me in some ways of a Maggie Stiefvater novel. It's true magical realism, and there's a suspension of disbelief to be had, to be sure. But it's a book that I feel like Leno was meant to be write. Her way of eviscerating rape culture, misogyny, and more is so adept, so searing. It is a call to arms to those who are not believed, who are ignored and mocked, who are the ones who see their lives ruined when the attackers run free.
In this way, You Must Not Miss is a strong, complex book tackling a tough topic. It may be difficult for some that this topic is underneath the magical world of Near, but I liked how that was what Magpie needed to deal with all that happened to her. Beware, this book is brutal at times (and yes, there's a trigger warning for rape/sexual assault). But it's beautifully written, too. It's complicated, much like its subject matter and its protagonist, who is still trying to figure herself out, as well. It's a different read, but if you're willing to give it a try, I think you'll be glad you did. 4 stars.