Search
Search results
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Kiss Quotient in Books
Dec 25, 2018
This was one of three books I got through Book of the Month this month - the other two were The Book of Essie and When Katie Met Cassidy. I'm reviewing this today instead of another Pride Month read because today is Autistic Pride Day! The Kiss Quotient both stars and is written by a woman on the autistic spectrum, so I thought today would be a fitting day to tell you about it!
So The Kiss Quotient is basically a gender-swapped Pretty Woman, as Hoang mentions in the Author's Note. Our heroine, Stella Lane, books an escort to teach her about sex. Stella is thirty years old, has only had sex a couple of times, never enjoyed it, and is worried about not being good at it and therefore not being able to get or keep a boyfriend. She's an incredibly successful econometrician, or someone who uses data and statistics to model and predict economic trends, in her case predicting what people will want to buy from clients. (She's the kind of person responsible for those "Amazon started marketing baby products to me before I even knew I was pregnant!" incidents.) So she has more money than she knows what to do with, and offers Michael, an escort, $50,000 a month to teach her about sex and relationships.
Because this is a romance, we know what's going to happen here. They fall in love with each other, but are sure that for the other one it's just a business arrangement.
I was NOT expecting this book to be as explicit as it is! I think because it is a Book of the Month, I wasn't expecting the standard trope of romance book with hot sex scenes. But that's what I got! I can't say I'm unhappy with that - god knows I like my guilty pleasure romance smut - but it was definitely unexpected. I'm not sure why it surprised me. The book's premise is all about Stella wanting to learn about sex; if that wasn't conducted on screen we'd lose a third of the book!
A sequel has already been announced, and it's about the other autistic character in the book, the hero's best friend's little brother, Khai, who we only see in one scene. Who I'd also like to know more about is the best friend, Quan! So I'm holding out hope for a third book.
One last thing that I found important - in the Author's Note, Hoang mentions her daughter was diagnosed with AS, and in reading about Autism, she realized she is also on the spectrum. This is something I've seen in three different books now. It's so common for women, especially, to go undiagnosed. They might be better at modelling allistic (non-autistic) behavior, or their special interests might be more "acceptable" to allistics, or sometimes they just get looked at as introverts when they're young instead of getting the help they might need. This is starting to change, as researchers and doctors are realizing Autism presents differently in women. But it seems autistic adult women are often discovering they're autistic through a diagnosis of their children. I found that interesting.
I did really enjoy this book. I think it's a great debut novel, and a great romance. I really like the recent trend of more diversity in lead characters in romance novels. Bring on the people of color! More disabled main characters! There's got to be a romance somewhere with a deaf heroine, right? More alternative sexualities and relationship structures! Everyone, everywhere, wants to be loved, and I want to read about it. The thing is, I'm sure these books exist, but they don't get the kind of publicity they need for people to know about them. We have to actually go looking for them. I feel like I've been better about that recently, but it's definitely a place where the publication industry could improve.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
So The Kiss Quotient is basically a gender-swapped Pretty Woman, as Hoang mentions in the Author's Note. Our heroine, Stella Lane, books an escort to teach her about sex. Stella is thirty years old, has only had sex a couple of times, never enjoyed it, and is worried about not being good at it and therefore not being able to get or keep a boyfriend. She's an incredibly successful econometrician, or someone who uses data and statistics to model and predict economic trends, in her case predicting what people will want to buy from clients. (She's the kind of person responsible for those "Amazon started marketing baby products to me before I even knew I was pregnant!" incidents.) So she has more money than she knows what to do with, and offers Michael, an escort, $50,000 a month to teach her about sex and relationships.
Because this is a romance, we know what's going to happen here. They fall in love with each other, but are sure that for the other one it's just a business arrangement.
I was NOT expecting this book to be as explicit as it is! I think because it is a Book of the Month, I wasn't expecting the standard trope of romance book with hot sex scenes. But that's what I got! I can't say I'm unhappy with that - god knows I like my guilty pleasure romance smut - but it was definitely unexpected. I'm not sure why it surprised me. The book's premise is all about Stella wanting to learn about sex; if that wasn't conducted on screen we'd lose a third of the book!
A sequel has already been announced, and it's about the other autistic character in the book, the hero's best friend's little brother, Khai, who we only see in one scene. Who I'd also like to know more about is the best friend, Quan! So I'm holding out hope for a third book.
One last thing that I found important - in the Author's Note, Hoang mentions her daughter was diagnosed with AS, and in reading about Autism, she realized she is also on the spectrum. This is something I've seen in three different books now. It's so common for women, especially, to go undiagnosed. They might be better at modelling allistic (non-autistic) behavior, or their special interests might be more "acceptable" to allistics, or sometimes they just get looked at as introverts when they're young instead of getting the help they might need. This is starting to change, as researchers and doctors are realizing Autism presents differently in women. But it seems autistic adult women are often discovering they're autistic through a diagnosis of their children. I found that interesting.
I did really enjoy this book. I think it's a great debut novel, and a great romance. I really like the recent trend of more diversity in lead characters in romance novels. Bring on the people of color! More disabled main characters! There's got to be a romance somewhere with a deaf heroine, right? More alternative sexualities and relationship structures! Everyone, everywhere, wants to be loved, and I want to read about it. The thing is, I'm sure these books exist, but they don't get the kind of publicity they need for people to know about them. We have to actually go looking for them. I feel like I've been better about that recently, but it's definitely a place where the publication industry could improve.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
May 25, 2021 (Updated May 25, 2021)
Last year we had a screening for “A Quiet Place Part II” scheduled and eagerly awaited the follow-up to the suspenseful and popular original film. Sadly we all know what happened soon after as a two-week lockdown grew and cinemas around the world were closed.
As cinemas re-open with growing but limited capacity; the film is set for release and will be a great indicator as to if the public is ready to return to cinemas in significant numbers or will they sit it out and opt to see the film down the line on Paramount+.
The film opens with a look at the day things changed for the world as Lee (John Krasinski); does some shopping while news reports come in of an explosion in Shanghai. Enjoying the weather; he joins his family at a Little League game and talks with his friend Emmett (Cillian Murphy) when the game is interrupted by the appearance of a large fireball in the sky.
As they head home; the city falls under attack by deadly creatures and Lee and his family narrowly escape. The film then jumps forward immediately following the conclusion of the first film and Evelyn (Emily Blunt); attempts to lead her newborn son, daughter Regan ( Millicent Simmons), and son Marcus (Noah Jupe) to a safer locale.
When Marcus is injured along the way; Evelyn takes refuge with Emmett who is not happy to have to care for others after the loss of his wife and despite a secure locale in a foundry; demands the family leave the following day.
When an unexpected radio signal appears; Regan is determined to leave and find the source as she knows the frequency of her Cochlear Implant is a weapon against the creatures and she figures if that can be broadcasted and the information revealed; then humanity has a chance to fight back and win.
What follows is a very gripping and intense story as Regan and Emmett attempt to complete the mission while Evelyn and her family endure all manner of threats as they try to survive.
The film builds upon what made the first film so great in that there are strong and relatable characters and some very tense situations. The screening we attended was so quiet you could tell that audience members were so enthralled that they were afraid to make any noise.
The film ups the action and expands upon the universe without losing any of the strong character-driven elements or relying too much upon CGI to carry the film.
John Krasinski writes, directed, and produced the film, and while he has less screen time than he did in the original; the film is the rare sequel that holds its own and actually improves upon the original.
My only issue with the film was that the ending was rather abrupt and left me with several unanswered questions. While this would be more than fine if we were assured of a third film to resolve unanswered elements; word is that a spin-off is in development so hopefully this will resolve the issues I had or at the least co-exist with a third part of the series.
For now; “A Quiet Place Part II” drives home why we need the cinematic experience as from the large screen to the Dolby Atmos sound; the film is a sensory experience that needs to be enjoyed in a communal setting with maximum sensory input.
The film sets the tension meter to the max and never disappoints and I urge you to experience this film the way it was intended.
4.5 stars out of 5
As cinemas re-open with growing but limited capacity; the film is set for release and will be a great indicator as to if the public is ready to return to cinemas in significant numbers or will they sit it out and opt to see the film down the line on Paramount+.
The film opens with a look at the day things changed for the world as Lee (John Krasinski); does some shopping while news reports come in of an explosion in Shanghai. Enjoying the weather; he joins his family at a Little League game and talks with his friend Emmett (Cillian Murphy) when the game is interrupted by the appearance of a large fireball in the sky.
As they head home; the city falls under attack by deadly creatures and Lee and his family narrowly escape. The film then jumps forward immediately following the conclusion of the first film and Evelyn (Emily Blunt); attempts to lead her newborn son, daughter Regan ( Millicent Simmons), and son Marcus (Noah Jupe) to a safer locale.
When Marcus is injured along the way; Evelyn takes refuge with Emmett who is not happy to have to care for others after the loss of his wife and despite a secure locale in a foundry; demands the family leave the following day.
When an unexpected radio signal appears; Regan is determined to leave and find the source as she knows the frequency of her Cochlear Implant is a weapon against the creatures and she figures if that can be broadcasted and the information revealed; then humanity has a chance to fight back and win.
What follows is a very gripping and intense story as Regan and Emmett attempt to complete the mission while Evelyn and her family endure all manner of threats as they try to survive.
The film builds upon what made the first film so great in that there are strong and relatable characters and some very tense situations. The screening we attended was so quiet you could tell that audience members were so enthralled that they were afraid to make any noise.
The film ups the action and expands upon the universe without losing any of the strong character-driven elements or relying too much upon CGI to carry the film.
John Krasinski writes, directed, and produced the film, and while he has less screen time than he did in the original; the film is the rare sequel that holds its own and actually improves upon the original.
My only issue with the film was that the ending was rather abrupt and left me with several unanswered questions. While this would be more than fine if we were assured of a third film to resolve unanswered elements; word is that a spin-off is in development so hopefully this will resolve the issues I had or at the least co-exist with a third part of the series.
For now; “A Quiet Place Part II” drives home why we need the cinematic experience as from the large screen to the Dolby Atmos sound; the film is a sensory experience that needs to be enjoyed in a communal setting with maximum sensory input.
The film sets the tension meter to the max and never disappoints and I urge you to experience this film the way it was intended.
4.5 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lady Bird (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“What if this is the best version”.
When did you grow up? I am now 57, and I’m still “working towards”! I remember distinctly though at the age of 16 thinking “I’ve got there”. And then again at 18. And then again at 21. And then again at 25…. There is something sweet about the certainty of youth that only life’s ultimate experiences can roughen the edges of.
“Lady Bird”, the directorial debut of Greta Gerwig, features one such teen who thinks she knows it all. Looking and acting for all the world like a 15 year old (something that Margot Robbie really can’t pull off in “I, Tonya”) Saoirse Ronan plays Christine McPherson who has the given name (“I gave the name to myself”) of ‘Lady Bird’. She is struggling with a lot of issues: an unreasonable and overbearing (parents: read ‘perfectly reasonably but firm’) mother (Laurie Metcalf, “Roseanne”); the issues of puberty and young love; the constrictions of a Catholic school she despises; and her inability to perform to the grades she needs to get into a college of her choice. That choice being on the East coast as far away from the backwater of Sacremento (“the mid-west of California” – LoL) as she can get.
Love comes in the form of two serial male fixations: the gorgeous and artistic Danny (Lucas Hedges, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, “Manchester By The Sea”) and the aloof and enigmatic Kyle (Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”).
This is a near perfect coming of age film. The plot, while fairly superficial and covering ground well-trodden before, fully engages you and makes the running time just fly by. And there is just so much talent on show. The script by Gerwig is chocker-block full of great and memorable lines; Ronan is pitch-perfect as the irascible and cock-sure teen; Tracy Letts (“The Post“) is magnificent in the less showy role as the “good cop” dad, struggling invisibly with his own demons; and Metcalf gives an Oscar-nominated performance that really should give Alison Janney a run for her money… a drive away from an airport conveys just perfectly every college-age parent’s emotional low-point.
Where perhaps the film overplays its hand a bit is in the “wrong side of the tracks” line. The household while struggling is by no means trailer-park poor (compare and contrast with “I, Tonya”): perhaps this is the depths of financial desperation found in Sacremento? But I doubt it… there still seems to be money available for fancy cowgirl outfits.
Which leads me to the rating, which seems to have been a common rant in the last few weeks. I would have thought that there was nothing like this film to turn the mirror of reasonableness on a young teen, perhaps helping them to treat their parents better, work harder for college or make better choices. Yet it has a UK 15 certificate. And for what? There is a full frontal male photo-spread in “Playgirl” (I want to say “it’s a penis, get over it”, but if forced I would have frankly just snipped the 50 milliseconds out to get the lower rating). And there are a few (only a few) F- and C- words. I have the same problem here as with “Phantom Thread” – here is a high-class film that a young teen audience would absolutely love to see. I think the BBFC have got it wrong again here.
I cannot recommend this film enough: a tale of teenage life love and resolution that is hard to beat. Possibly one of the best coming of age tales I’ve ever seen. On the basis that it looks like I will never get to see “Call Me By Your Name” – the only major one I’ve missed – before this Sunday’s Oscar ceremony, what a great way to round off my Oscar-viewing season.
“Lady Bird”, the directorial debut of Greta Gerwig, features one such teen who thinks she knows it all. Looking and acting for all the world like a 15 year old (something that Margot Robbie really can’t pull off in “I, Tonya”) Saoirse Ronan plays Christine McPherson who has the given name (“I gave the name to myself”) of ‘Lady Bird’. She is struggling with a lot of issues: an unreasonable and overbearing (parents: read ‘perfectly reasonably but firm’) mother (Laurie Metcalf, “Roseanne”); the issues of puberty and young love; the constrictions of a Catholic school she despises; and her inability to perform to the grades she needs to get into a college of her choice. That choice being on the East coast as far away from the backwater of Sacremento (“the mid-west of California” – LoL) as she can get.
Love comes in the form of two serial male fixations: the gorgeous and artistic Danny (Lucas Hedges, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, “Manchester By The Sea”) and the aloof and enigmatic Kyle (Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”).
This is a near perfect coming of age film. The plot, while fairly superficial and covering ground well-trodden before, fully engages you and makes the running time just fly by. And there is just so much talent on show. The script by Gerwig is chocker-block full of great and memorable lines; Ronan is pitch-perfect as the irascible and cock-sure teen; Tracy Letts (“The Post“) is magnificent in the less showy role as the “good cop” dad, struggling invisibly with his own demons; and Metcalf gives an Oscar-nominated performance that really should give Alison Janney a run for her money… a drive away from an airport conveys just perfectly every college-age parent’s emotional low-point.
Where perhaps the film overplays its hand a bit is in the “wrong side of the tracks” line. The household while struggling is by no means trailer-park poor (compare and contrast with “I, Tonya”): perhaps this is the depths of financial desperation found in Sacremento? But I doubt it… there still seems to be money available for fancy cowgirl outfits.
Which leads me to the rating, which seems to have been a common rant in the last few weeks. I would have thought that there was nothing like this film to turn the mirror of reasonableness on a young teen, perhaps helping them to treat their parents better, work harder for college or make better choices. Yet it has a UK 15 certificate. And for what? There is a full frontal male photo-spread in “Playgirl” (I want to say “it’s a penis, get over it”, but if forced I would have frankly just snipped the 50 milliseconds out to get the lower rating). And there are a few (only a few) F- and C- words. I have the same problem here as with “Phantom Thread” – here is a high-class film that a young teen audience would absolutely love to see. I think the BBFC have got it wrong again here.
I cannot recommend this film enough: a tale of teenage life love and resolution that is hard to beat. Possibly one of the best coming of age tales I’ve ever seen. On the basis that it looks like I will never get to see “Call Me By Your Name” – the only major one I’ve missed – before this Sunday’s Oscar ceremony, what a great way to round off my Oscar-viewing season.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time (2018) in Movies
Mar 25, 2018
Need to iron out this Wrinkle
The target audience for Ava DuVernay's adaptation of the 1962 classic novel A WRINKLE IN TIME are youth ages 10-14.
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Inky Books (3 KP) rated Eon: Dragoneye Reborn (Eon, #1) in Books
Jun 21, 2018
When I was young and impressionable (well, not really impressionable, I’ve actually always been the stubborn and fiery redhead I am now, just a little more shy) I read a book about a sixteen year old girl, in a man’s world, pretending to be a twelve year old boy. In this same book there were also dragons, no not the ones you hunt to steal their treasure, but the kind that you bond with and can gain amazing powers from.
Of course it has dragons; how could I resist? Ever since reading Eargon I’ve had a thing for books with dragons in them, though it is rather hard to find some where it isn’t all about dragon hunting. Anyone have any suggestions?
Anyway, so this book was one of my favorites as a teenager because of the world building as well as the secrets and powers that the characters have. And I really do like it, though I’m probably going to say more bad things than I will good for a reason I will explain later.
So, the good things:
Main character, Eona. I guess I feel like she is similar to me in a way. She can be stubborn but also knows when to hold herself back when she needs to. She can be rather forceful and hostile while also having a nicer, sweeter side. She struggles with much through the book and it gives the book a more realistic feeling.
The world of the Dragoneyes. It’s ancient Chinese mythology, and mythology is something I like to read and learn about. It is very interesting to read about, and the author did her research on the subject.
And the bad things:
The book moved rather slowly. Yes, there was a lot that happened, but there was also a large amount of the politics of the world that got involved to. Politics isn’t something I like, it’s actually something I am starting to hate in recent years. So this doesn’t appeal to me. When I got closer to the end I skimmed, half because I knew what was happening for the most part, half because I was getting so bored with the back and forth of the characters.
The characters. Most of the characters had a fake feeling to them. They seemed one sided and all kind of reacted in similar ways when faced with these situations. They were almost flat and didn’t seem real.
Eona. Yes I know she is in the good things too, but I really dislike her fatal flaw. It took her most of the book to figure out (even though she wasn’t even the one who figured it out in the end) what the secret was to her power. It was rather annoying and I wish the author would have allowed Eona to figure it out a bit soon and have some more of the awesome power in there.
The good aspects of this book do outweigh the bad ones, but it still caused me to think hard about the rating I would give it.
Of course it has dragons; how could I resist? Ever since reading Eargon I’ve had a thing for books with dragons in them, though it is rather hard to find some where it isn’t all about dragon hunting. Anyone have any suggestions?
Anyway, so this book was one of my favorites as a teenager because of the world building as well as the secrets and powers that the characters have. And I really do like it, though I’m probably going to say more bad things than I will good for a reason I will explain later.
So, the good things:
Main character, Eona. I guess I feel like she is similar to me in a way. She can be stubborn but also knows when to hold herself back when she needs to. She can be rather forceful and hostile while also having a nicer, sweeter side. She struggles with much through the book and it gives the book a more realistic feeling.
The world of the Dragoneyes. It’s ancient Chinese mythology, and mythology is something I like to read and learn about. It is very interesting to read about, and the author did her research on the subject.
And the bad things:
The book moved rather slowly. Yes, there was a lot that happened, but there was also a large amount of the politics of the world that got involved to. Politics isn’t something I like, it’s actually something I am starting to hate in recent years. So this doesn’t appeal to me. When I got closer to the end I skimmed, half because I knew what was happening for the most part, half because I was getting so bored with the back and forth of the characters.
The characters. Most of the characters had a fake feeling to them. They seemed one sided and all kind of reacted in similar ways when faced with these situations. They were almost flat and didn’t seem real.
Eona. Yes I know she is in the good things too, but I really dislike her fatal flaw. It took her most of the book to figure out (even though she wasn’t even the one who figured it out in the end) what the secret was to her power. It was rather annoying and I wish the author would have allowed Eona to figure it out a bit soon and have some more of the awesome power in there.
The good aspects of this book do outweigh the bad ones, but it still caused me to think hard about the rating I would give it.
Louise (64 KP) rated Wolf by Wolf (Wolf by Wolf, #1) in Books
Jul 2, 2018
Yael is 5 years old and finds herself a prisoner in a Nazi Concentration camp, she has been specifically selected by a doctor for an experiment. The experiment entails a series of injections every few days - their aim.... to make her blonde haired and blue-eyed (an Aryan). These injections are severe and the weak show signs of fever and for most of them death but not for Yael.
1956 Yael is a member of the resistance, her aim in life is to kill Hitler to make the world a better place. With so many assassination attempts Hitler hardly attends social functions, so it's quite difficult to get near him. The resistance have a plan which involves Yael - she must enter the Axis Motorbike race disguised as another young girl who has once had the pleasure of meeting the Führer - if Yael can win, her life's mission will be complete, However she didn't plan for all the backstabbing and love involved in the race or the hidden secrets which are not on file. For this no training would help her, she has to win.
This is one of those books that explores the topic of Hitler winning the war and how the rest of the world would be effected and what other bizarre theories he comes up with. This also covers another serious topic that I myself did not know about was that people were experimented on in the concentration camps which caused death and disfigurements. Which is absolutely brutal and very hard to read about.
I was umming and ahhing over this book for a while,I heard many great things about it but I still wasn't totally convinced. Was it the fact that this book is based on Hitler winning and carrying on with his reign of terror or was it the motorcycle race? I have never read anything about racing before and it doesn't really appeal to me.However my lesson has been learnt...... I think! Always try to read something out of your comfort zone because you never know you might just end up loving it, which is exactly what happened to me with this book.
I loved this book with a passion, I loved the back stories to the wolves and how they become. The authors writing style was beautiful to read, utterly compelling but also hard due to the content and how realistic it was. This is a book that explores identity and reasons that drive Yael on through her mission. The book does go back and forth from the past and present, which I really enjoyed, I think if the book wasn't written this way it could have dragged a bit. The premise of this book is definitely unique and like nothing I have read before. Ryan Graudin has a novella which is called Iron to Iron which I desperately need to read as I just want more.
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in historical fiction and young adult.
Overall I rated this book 5 out of 5 stars
1956 Yael is a member of the resistance, her aim in life is to kill Hitler to make the world a better place. With so many assassination attempts Hitler hardly attends social functions, so it's quite difficult to get near him. The resistance have a plan which involves Yael - she must enter the Axis Motorbike race disguised as another young girl who has once had the pleasure of meeting the Führer - if Yael can win, her life's mission will be complete, However she didn't plan for all the backstabbing and love involved in the race or the hidden secrets which are not on file. For this no training would help her, she has to win.
This is one of those books that explores the topic of Hitler winning the war and how the rest of the world would be effected and what other bizarre theories he comes up with. This also covers another serious topic that I myself did not know about was that people were experimented on in the concentration camps which caused death and disfigurements. Which is absolutely brutal and very hard to read about.
I was umming and ahhing over this book for a while,I heard many great things about it but I still wasn't totally convinced. Was it the fact that this book is based on Hitler winning and carrying on with his reign of terror or was it the motorcycle race? I have never read anything about racing before and it doesn't really appeal to me.However my lesson has been learnt...... I think! Always try to read something out of your comfort zone because you never know you might just end up loving it, which is exactly what happened to me with this book.
I loved this book with a passion, I loved the back stories to the wolves and how they become. The authors writing style was beautiful to read, utterly compelling but also hard due to the content and how realistic it was. This is a book that explores identity and reasons that drive Yael on through her mission. The book does go back and forth from the past and present, which I really enjoyed, I think if the book wasn't written this way it could have dragged a bit. The premise of this book is definitely unique and like nothing I have read before. Ryan Graudin has a novella which is called Iron to Iron which I desperately need to read as I just want more.
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in historical fiction and young adult.
Overall I rated this book 5 out of 5 stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
All good things must come to an end and with the fourth and final film based on Suzanne Collin’s widely popular Hunger Games series, audience get a chance to say goodbye to their favorite characters.
Literally picking up mid-scene, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2” features Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), dealing with the vicious attack from Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), after having his mind scrambled by the evil minions of President Snow (Donald Sutherland).
Despite the desires of District 13 President Coin (Julianne Moore), for Katniss to stay behind the lines following a harrowing incident during a visit to the Districts, Katniss is determined to kill Snow, and sets off with a dream team who is actually working behind the lines to film propaganda videos.
Naturally things are not as safe as they seem and before long, Katniss and her team are not only dealing with the dangers of the Capitol, but with an unknown element in the form of Peeta who was assigned to accompany them mid mission.
Politics soon appear to be as big a danger to Katniss to the traps and deadly creations that Snow has devised for her, but undaunted, Katniss and her crew must face the dangers to restore freedom to the people.
The film follows the book well in the second half of the film but it does suffer from pacing and editing issues. The film takes a while to get to the action and then takes a rest and conversation route for the characters. This is followed later in the film which undermines a sense of urgency for the characters. What made the earlier films such a success was the social commentary and horrific fascination of great splendor while those around them suffer and starve to toil away to provide creature comforts to the elite class. There was also the fact that the children of the oppressed were forced to battle to the death for the entertainment of the wealthy as well.
This element is lacking from this film, as it is in many ways a road trip of sorts with a couple of action scenes tossed in. Lawrence does well with what she has but she is essentially like most of the cast forced to play out the string save for some powerful but all too fleeting moments. Hutcherson shines as Peeta as you can see his torment as he strives to recover the personality and memories that are his and not fabrications, as well as his constant turmoil.
In the end the film unfolds not In a grand spectacle but rather pedestrian which while in keeping with the book, does seem disappointing compared to how good the series has been to date.
The film will satisfy fans but it does not hold your attention and fill you with suspense the way the first two films did, and despite its best efforts, is slightly below part 1. That being said, it is entertaining and does make for a satisfying end to the series, despite missing on the potential to do more with the material and characters.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/19/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2/
Literally picking up mid-scene, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2” features Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), dealing with the vicious attack from Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), after having his mind scrambled by the evil minions of President Snow (Donald Sutherland).
Despite the desires of District 13 President Coin (Julianne Moore), for Katniss to stay behind the lines following a harrowing incident during a visit to the Districts, Katniss is determined to kill Snow, and sets off with a dream team who is actually working behind the lines to film propaganda videos.
Naturally things are not as safe as they seem and before long, Katniss and her team are not only dealing with the dangers of the Capitol, but with an unknown element in the form of Peeta who was assigned to accompany them mid mission.
Politics soon appear to be as big a danger to Katniss to the traps and deadly creations that Snow has devised for her, but undaunted, Katniss and her crew must face the dangers to restore freedom to the people.
The film follows the book well in the second half of the film but it does suffer from pacing and editing issues. The film takes a while to get to the action and then takes a rest and conversation route for the characters. This is followed later in the film which undermines a sense of urgency for the characters. What made the earlier films such a success was the social commentary and horrific fascination of great splendor while those around them suffer and starve to toil away to provide creature comforts to the elite class. There was also the fact that the children of the oppressed were forced to battle to the death for the entertainment of the wealthy as well.
This element is lacking from this film, as it is in many ways a road trip of sorts with a couple of action scenes tossed in. Lawrence does well with what she has but she is essentially like most of the cast forced to play out the string save for some powerful but all too fleeting moments. Hutcherson shines as Peeta as you can see his torment as he strives to recover the personality and memories that are his and not fabrications, as well as his constant turmoil.
In the end the film unfolds not In a grand spectacle but rather pedestrian which while in keeping with the book, does seem disappointing compared to how good the series has been to date.
The film will satisfy fans but it does not hold your attention and fill you with suspense the way the first two films did, and despite its best efforts, is slightly below part 1. That being said, it is entertaining and does make for a satisfying end to the series, despite missing on the potential to do more with the material and characters.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/19/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Peppermint (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Tragedy strikes Riley North (Jennifer Garner) when her husband and young daughter are gunned down in a drive-by shooting. The shooters were all part of a local gang ran by Diego Garcia (Juan Pablo Raba). Garcia thought Riley’s husband, Chris (Jeff Hephner), was part of a plot to steal money from him. Chris had actually turned down the job but it was too late and Garcia ordered his henchmen to make a statement out of killing Chris. Riley despite being shot in the heard and unconscious she was still able to identify the murders of her husband and her daughter Carly (Cailey Fleming). Thinking she would get justice she testified at a preliminary hearing. But to her surprise the defense lawyer said due to being her injuries that she didn’t really know what she saw. Shockingly the prosecutor did nothing to help her and the judge declared there was not enough evidence to proceed. Feeling cheated and everyone was working against her Riley disappears. On the five year anniversary of the murder of her family the three men responsible are found hanging from a Ferris wheel. When Detective Beltran (John Ortiz) and Detective Carmichael (John Gallagher Jr.) show up to the crime scene the immediately wonder could Riley North be back and exacting vengeance.
This vigilante action film is pretty much what you think it will be. There is blood and a lot of action. The acting is okay but not really the focal point of the film. But one thing that is not in doubt is the ending, don’t worry I won’t spoil it I don’t need to. With the somewhat recent success of films like Taken, John Wick and The Equalizer, and their sequels, this genre is not lacking in content. For me this dilutes the quality and original story telling of this type of film. The director, Pierre Morel (Taken, The Gunman), seems at home in this film type and does a decent job here. Jennifer Garner comes off as a bad ass and I enjoyed her in this film. The rest of the cast is good but pretty stereotypical of the genre also. This is not a bad movie just one I feel I have seen before. I will say I enjoyed all three of the movies I mentioned above and that should speak well to this movie. I just wanted a little more. It is also worth mentioning that in many of the scenes where Garner was exacting her revenge the audience was prone to laugh as a bad guy was getting a bullet to the head or a file cabinet dropped on their head. That makes it hard to take the movie too seriously.
If you are a vigilante movie fan this is definitely one to check out. The action is good and there is definitely a good amount of it. A little over the top with the blood for me but not too bad. It is nice to see Garner back in the action world and I hope this leads to more from her. I would say save your theater money for another movie and stream this one when it hits your favorite service.
This vigilante action film is pretty much what you think it will be. There is blood and a lot of action. The acting is okay but not really the focal point of the film. But one thing that is not in doubt is the ending, don’t worry I won’t spoil it I don’t need to. With the somewhat recent success of films like Taken, John Wick and The Equalizer, and their sequels, this genre is not lacking in content. For me this dilutes the quality and original story telling of this type of film. The director, Pierre Morel (Taken, The Gunman), seems at home in this film type and does a decent job here. Jennifer Garner comes off as a bad ass and I enjoyed her in this film. The rest of the cast is good but pretty stereotypical of the genre also. This is not a bad movie just one I feel I have seen before. I will say I enjoyed all three of the movies I mentioned above and that should speak well to this movie. I just wanted a little more. It is also worth mentioning that in many of the scenes where Garner was exacting her revenge the audience was prone to laugh as a bad guy was getting a bullet to the head or a file cabinet dropped on their head. That makes it hard to take the movie too seriously.
If you are a vigilante movie fan this is definitely one to check out. The action is good and there is definitely a good amount of it. A little over the top with the blood for me but not too bad. It is nice to see Garner back in the action world and I hope this leads to more from her. I would say save your theater money for another movie and stream this one when it hits your favorite service.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Big Little Lies - Season 1 in TV
Feb 8, 2019 (Updated Feb 8, 2019)
Rich White People Problems: The Show
As more news of Season 2 of this show seeps out, I decided to eventually get around to catching the first season of this highly praised and seemingly universally lauded show. I went in expecting greatness from this thing after reading all of the glowing critic's reviews. I am also a huge fan of many of the cast members involved in this project, so knowing nothing about the plot or subject matter the show is based on, I went in blind; excited to see what this series had in store.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Public Enemies (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
The year is 1933 and bank robberies are at an all time high. John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd are at the top of their game. In the public eye, robbers are looked at as heroes instead of criminals. Dillinger enjoys the fruit of his labor to the fullest until the day Melvin Purvis is put in charge of the FBI division down in Chicago. Word traveled fast of how one of FBI's top agents (Purvis) took down Pretty Boy Floyd and hopes are high that he can help in the newly announced "war on crime." Once Purvis arrived in Chicago, the crime wave of the 30's that was on a steady uprise took a drastic decline. Bank robberies were never the same as Dillinger's friends began dropping like flies. As Dillinger's motto of not thinking about tomorrow since he's too busy enjoying today comes back to haunt him, he soon realizes that he can only hide for so long and that the feds will catch up with him sooner or later.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.