Search
Search results
RavenclawPrincess913 (253 KP) rated A Multitude of Dreams in Books
Sep 10, 2023
Favorite book of this year
Title: A Multitude of dreams
Author: Mara Rutherford
My favorite read of the year would be A Multitude of Dreams by Mara Rutherford. In the beginning of this book it takes place during the after math of a horrible plague called the Mori Roja which basically causes the patient to bleed out and die. Only ways people can survive the mori Roja are to die and be reborn, never come in contact with the plague or be immune.
Princess Imogen of Goslind has been locked in the palace with many other higher born citizens for the past four years during the plague she wants to be set free same with many others but the king will not allow that. After Nico impersonating a prince shows up they quickly learn being locked up is what helped them survive so long but it is no longer possible when the food runs out.
When Nico realizes that Lord Crane is a reborn and learns of his plans he decided to impersonate a prince who died on his way to meet the princess for a marriage agreement. He died by a reborn. He does this to try to warn and save the people of the palace but he has no success when Lord Crane and other reborns invade the palace killing many.
This being the best book I read of 2023 I am having a hard time choosing just one part I loved the most in it. I did enjoy that Princess Giselle got the karma that was coming for her it was one hundred percent deserved. The story was really well written and extremely hard to put down. Another part I loved were all the moments between Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. Honestly only part of this book I disliked was that Jocelyn and Imogen didn't end up together. I thought they would because they were giving off more that friend vibes with the kisses and stuff.
When it comes to the characters my favorites were Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. I loved them from the beginning. One character who gave bad vibes and I knew couldn't be trust was Lord Crane. I could just tell there was something up with him. On the other hand Nico and Colin were both very trustworthy from the beginning. I didn't like Giselle, Henry or Branson either. Princess Giselle I could tell she was a backstabber. Henry I could tell he had an alternative motive and couldn't be trusted. Same with Branson. This book had a very good character development.
I recommend reading this if books based during or after a plague interests you. I also recommend if you enjoy books about vampires.
Author: Mara Rutherford
My favorite read of the year would be A Multitude of Dreams by Mara Rutherford. In the beginning of this book it takes place during the after math of a horrible plague called the Mori Roja which basically causes the patient to bleed out and die. Only ways people can survive the mori Roja are to die and be reborn, never come in contact with the plague or be immune.
Princess Imogen of Goslind has been locked in the palace with many other higher born citizens for the past four years during the plague she wants to be set free same with many others but the king will not allow that. After Nico impersonating a prince shows up they quickly learn being locked up is what helped them survive so long but it is no longer possible when the food runs out.
When Nico realizes that Lord Crane is a reborn and learns of his plans he decided to impersonate a prince who died on his way to meet the princess for a marriage agreement. He died by a reborn. He does this to try to warn and save the people of the palace but he has no success when Lord Crane and other reborns invade the palace killing many.
This being the best book I read of 2023 I am having a hard time choosing just one part I loved the most in it. I did enjoy that Princess Giselle got the karma that was coming for her it was one hundred percent deserved. The story was really well written and extremely hard to put down. Another part I loved were all the moments between Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. Honestly only part of this book I disliked was that Jocelyn and Imogen didn't end up together. I thought they would because they were giving off more that friend vibes with the kisses and stuff.
When it comes to the characters my favorites were Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. I loved them from the beginning. One character who gave bad vibes and I knew couldn't be trust was Lord Crane. I could just tell there was something up with him. On the other hand Nico and Colin were both very trustworthy from the beginning. I didn't like Giselle, Henry or Branson either. Princess Giselle I could tell she was a backstabber. Henry I could tell he had an alternative motive and couldn't be trusted. Same with Branson. This book had a very good character development.
I recommend reading this if books based during or after a plague interests you. I also recommend if you enjoy books about vampires.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Jurassic Shark
Ah the shark attack movie. A genre that has over the years changed itself from impactful horror suspense thriller to cheesy, throwaway popcorn entertainment. Apart from when Steven Spielberg changed cinema forever with his 1975 masterpiece, Jaws, audiences have been given few treats in the decades that followed.
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated A Cold Day in Hell in Books
Jan 29, 2018
Engaging characters (2 more)
Great courtroom scene
Strong female lead
Engaging debut mystery
Lauren Riley is a thirty-eight-year-old twice-divorced mother of two college age daughters, working cold case homicides. She has a great, younger cold case partner, Reese, and carries a torch for her ex-husband, Mark. Meanwhile, her ex, Joe Wheeler, is a Garden Valley homicide detective and a total (excuse my language) a-hole, who brazenly punches Lauren in the mouth after learning she's working against him on a case. Lauren's working two jobs -- her daytime gig on cold cases and also as a certified Private Investigator (PI). Lauren is hired by her nemesis, attorney Frank Violanti, to work the high-profile case of David, who is accused of murdering Katherine Vine, the beautiful, younger wife of Anthony Vine, who runs a successful chain of gyms. Lauren knows taking the case could stir up some issues in her department, with the DA, and with Reese. But in her gut, she feels that David is innocent. Can she and Frank make peace and prove it?
I read a lot of mysteries and while there are thankfully more strong female detectives coming on the scene (see Kristen Lepionka's Roxanne Weary and Emily Littlejohn's Gemma Monroe, for instance), they are still few and far between. While Lauren Riley may still be finding herself (there's a lot of side coverage of emotional entanglements and relationships here), I still love finding and championing a complicated, real, strong female detective.
Lauren's PI case is really the star of the show, and it's interesting and engaging throughout the entire novel. It keeps you guessing throughout, questioning whether David did it or not, and who else played a key role in Katherine and Anthony Vine lives. Nothing is cut or dried.
Also fascinating is Lauren's main cold case. While you could argue some of it ties up neatly, it doesn't go as expected, per se, if that makes sense, and the characters involved are intriguing and different. All the cases kept me interested as I read. A lot certainly happens in this novel, between Lauren's work and personal life. Nothing is boring, and there's never really a dull moment, especially once you get into the swing of things and realize that the book covers both her personal life and her work life in-depth. It also tells the story from more than Lauren's POV, even if she's the main focus, which works surprisingly well.
I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the book culminates in a trial related to Lauren's PI case, and it's a great, suspenseful, incredibly well-written piece of work. The courtroom scenes were so well-done and really had me on the edge of my seat. One of the things I loved about this novel was how I could so easily picture each of these characters-- each is well-described and fleshed out. Redmond writes darn good trial scenes (and a darn good book), and I was frantically flipping the pages to see how things would turn out.
It wasn't until I finished the book that I learned the author is a retired homicide detective, but it definitely shows as you read. The novel is written expertly in terms of police and courtroom procedure, but still enjoyable in terms of the characters. There is a lot of personal "stuff" in terms of Lauren; this will be a little different if you are used to the Bosch type of detective (the love of my life and my hero). Still, it's completely refreshing to see a complicated female lead detective, and, as mentioned, so nice to be reading more of these stories. I grew to really love Lauren.
The courtroom scenes are great, and a lot will keep you guessing. Sure, some of the cold cases wrap up what seem a little easily, but even Lauren addresses that as she works. I read some reviews that Joe Wheeler is a cliche character, and I guess I could see where people get that, but for me, society as of late seems to be showing us everyday that these sort of angry, abusive men truly exist. Everywhere. To me, Joe was a sadly realistic portrayal of a horrible man, and his slow, boiling anger only added to the tension of the entire novel.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. It looks like it's going to be a series, and it ends with some unfinished issues that make me even more eager for book two.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
I read a lot of mysteries and while there are thankfully more strong female detectives coming on the scene (see Kristen Lepionka's Roxanne Weary and Emily Littlejohn's Gemma Monroe, for instance), they are still few and far between. While Lauren Riley may still be finding herself (there's a lot of side coverage of emotional entanglements and relationships here), I still love finding and championing a complicated, real, strong female detective.
Lauren's PI case is really the star of the show, and it's interesting and engaging throughout the entire novel. It keeps you guessing throughout, questioning whether David did it or not, and who else played a key role in Katherine and Anthony Vine lives. Nothing is cut or dried.
Also fascinating is Lauren's main cold case. While you could argue some of it ties up neatly, it doesn't go as expected, per se, if that makes sense, and the characters involved are intriguing and different. All the cases kept me interested as I read. A lot certainly happens in this novel, between Lauren's work and personal life. Nothing is boring, and there's never really a dull moment, especially once you get into the swing of things and realize that the book covers both her personal life and her work life in-depth. It also tells the story from more than Lauren's POV, even if she's the main focus, which works surprisingly well.
I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the book culminates in a trial related to Lauren's PI case, and it's a great, suspenseful, incredibly well-written piece of work. The courtroom scenes were so well-done and really had me on the edge of my seat. One of the things I loved about this novel was how I could so easily picture each of these characters-- each is well-described and fleshed out. Redmond writes darn good trial scenes (and a darn good book), and I was frantically flipping the pages to see how things would turn out.
It wasn't until I finished the book that I learned the author is a retired homicide detective, but it definitely shows as you read. The novel is written expertly in terms of police and courtroom procedure, but still enjoyable in terms of the characters. There is a lot of personal "stuff" in terms of Lauren; this will be a little different if you are used to the Bosch type of detective (the love of my life and my hero). Still, it's completely refreshing to see a complicated female lead detective, and, as mentioned, so nice to be reading more of these stories. I grew to really love Lauren.
The courtroom scenes are great, and a lot will keep you guessing. Sure, some of the cold cases wrap up what seem a little easily, but even Lauren addresses that as she works. I read some reviews that Joe Wheeler is a cliche character, and I guess I could see where people get that, but for me, society as of late seems to be showing us everyday that these sort of angry, abusive men truly exist. Everywhere. To me, Joe was a sadly realistic portrayal of a horrible man, and his slow, boiling anger only added to the tension of the entire novel.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. It looks like it's going to be a series, and it ends with some unfinished issues that make me even more eager for book two.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Becs (244 KP) rated The Crucible in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I absolutely love Arthur Miller and anything regarding witches/ the Salem Trials. So, the crucible for me is a five-star novel. Can we just take a moment to admire the writers of the 50’s and older as they don’t seem to be getting much hype lately? Like, literary classics are deemed school reads and not your typical everyday read. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Every generation has a coming of age classic that they can point to and say that it resonated with them. Whether it be classic John Hughes movies such as Pretty in Pink or The Breakfast Club, there is always something that defines the youth of that generation. Whether it be the situations that the main characters find themselves in, or even something as simple as the music and fashion, there is usually something that will strike a familiar chord with the audience. Even when I go back and rewatch the classics, it reminds me of a simpler time, when my life struggles involved asking a girl to a dance or attempting to fit in to any number of awkward first-time moments that each of us at one time or another go through. Good Boys is such a movie, about the awkwardness and naivety of youth, even if the kids had a bigger potty mouth than I did as a child.
Max (Jacob Tremblay), Thor (Brady Noon), and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) are a group of 12-year old boys known to their family and friends as the Bean Bag boys. Why do they refer to themselves as the Bean Bag Boys you ask? Why because they sit on Bean Bag chairs of course. Entering 6th grade they are trying to stand out but tend to do so in all the worst ways. Thor loves to sing but is bullied to not sign up for the school musical because it’s not a cool thing to be. Lucas is dealing with his parent’s new divorce and has a propensity to always tell the truth (even when the truth potentially causes more damage than a lie). Then there is Max, a young man whose hormones are beginning to take over his brain and can only think of the love of his life (and future wife of course) Brixlee.
Max being to shy to even look at Brixlee when she is looking his way is finally given a golden opportunity when he is invited by popular kid Soren (Izaac Wang) to a kissing party. The idea of being able to not only speak to Brixlee but be able to kiss her causes a rush of emotions that gravitate from excitement to terror. Max, believing that the way to his true-loves heart is by being a kissing expert recruits his fellow Bean Bag Boys on a quest to learn to kiss.
His quest will take him from spying on his “nymphomaniac” neighbor, to a treacherous highway crossing to get to the mall. They will have to brave frat houses, and potentially risky run-ins with pedophiles and the police, all to learn how to be a better kisser. Of course, there is plenty of laughs and situations that only naïve children could get themselves into, all of which had me and the entirety of the audience laughing the entire way through
Good Boys is a movie that relies on the audience connection with the main characters to succeed. Without that, you are left with a movie full of foul language and crude humor which have lately become a dime a dozen. Thankfully the casting of Good Boys far exceeds any expectations I had going into the theater. Comedies of these type lean heavily on the actors to carry the story through the hi-jinx that are around every corner and the actors were more than up to the challenge. Jacob Tremblay portrays perfectly the fear that every young boy (or girl) goes through when they imagine their first kiss. Keith L. Williams shows the heart break that a young kid goes through when deal with personal tragedy (in this case his parents’ divorce) and yet still remains true-to-himself anyway. Brady Noon excels at his desire to be cool, and still struggle with how coolness affects what he truly loves and wants to ultimately do. All three as a group convincingly take us on a journey that may seem outlandish, yet ultimately feel believable as well.
Good Boys also has a strong supporting cast, that add further dimension to the film. The two “old” girls Lily (Midori Francis) and Hannah (Molly Gordon) are fantastic in their portrayal of two women who simply want their drugs to get high. They will go to almost any lengths to get them back from the boys who stole them and yet end up becoming a bigger part to the film as a whole. Even the well meaning yet clueless parents of Lucas (Lil Rel Howery and Retta) add to the laughs as a couple trying their best to protect their son even as their own lives are driven apart.
Good Boys may come across in previews as a crude comedy with loads of foul language and sexual situations. While at first glance that may be what it is, as you pull back the layers you soon begin to realize that it’s a story, not about the words that are said, but the innocence of youth and what it means to grow apart as friends. The laughs are non-stop and the language excusable because of the innocence of those on the screen who are spouting them. As parents maybe you’d be looking to wash their mouths out with soap, but as the audience you can’t help but think how innocent they truly are. Good Boys is a movie that will resonate with many in the audience, who likely went through some of these very same dilemmas in their own coming of age stories. Maybe not through paintball fights at a frat house, or crossing a busy freeway, but we each have our own unique stories that helped to mold us into who we are today. It’s funny how watching a film like this can make you reminisce on your own experiences, even if it isn’t on the big screen for all to see.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/good-boys/
Max (Jacob Tremblay), Thor (Brady Noon), and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) are a group of 12-year old boys known to their family and friends as the Bean Bag boys. Why do they refer to themselves as the Bean Bag Boys you ask? Why because they sit on Bean Bag chairs of course. Entering 6th grade they are trying to stand out but tend to do so in all the worst ways. Thor loves to sing but is bullied to not sign up for the school musical because it’s not a cool thing to be. Lucas is dealing with his parent’s new divorce and has a propensity to always tell the truth (even when the truth potentially causes more damage than a lie). Then there is Max, a young man whose hormones are beginning to take over his brain and can only think of the love of his life (and future wife of course) Brixlee.
Max being to shy to even look at Brixlee when she is looking his way is finally given a golden opportunity when he is invited by popular kid Soren (Izaac Wang) to a kissing party. The idea of being able to not only speak to Brixlee but be able to kiss her causes a rush of emotions that gravitate from excitement to terror. Max, believing that the way to his true-loves heart is by being a kissing expert recruits his fellow Bean Bag Boys on a quest to learn to kiss.
His quest will take him from spying on his “nymphomaniac” neighbor, to a treacherous highway crossing to get to the mall. They will have to brave frat houses, and potentially risky run-ins with pedophiles and the police, all to learn how to be a better kisser. Of course, there is plenty of laughs and situations that only naïve children could get themselves into, all of which had me and the entirety of the audience laughing the entire way through
Good Boys is a movie that relies on the audience connection with the main characters to succeed. Without that, you are left with a movie full of foul language and crude humor which have lately become a dime a dozen. Thankfully the casting of Good Boys far exceeds any expectations I had going into the theater. Comedies of these type lean heavily on the actors to carry the story through the hi-jinx that are around every corner and the actors were more than up to the challenge. Jacob Tremblay portrays perfectly the fear that every young boy (or girl) goes through when they imagine their first kiss. Keith L. Williams shows the heart break that a young kid goes through when deal with personal tragedy (in this case his parents’ divorce) and yet still remains true-to-himself anyway. Brady Noon excels at his desire to be cool, and still struggle with how coolness affects what he truly loves and wants to ultimately do. All three as a group convincingly take us on a journey that may seem outlandish, yet ultimately feel believable as well.
Good Boys also has a strong supporting cast, that add further dimension to the film. The two “old” girls Lily (Midori Francis) and Hannah (Molly Gordon) are fantastic in their portrayal of two women who simply want their drugs to get high. They will go to almost any lengths to get them back from the boys who stole them and yet end up becoming a bigger part to the film as a whole. Even the well meaning yet clueless parents of Lucas (Lil Rel Howery and Retta) add to the laughs as a couple trying their best to protect their son even as their own lives are driven apart.
Good Boys may come across in previews as a crude comedy with loads of foul language and sexual situations. While at first glance that may be what it is, as you pull back the layers you soon begin to realize that it’s a story, not about the words that are said, but the innocence of youth and what it means to grow apart as friends. The laughs are non-stop and the language excusable because of the innocence of those on the screen who are spouting them. As parents maybe you’d be looking to wash their mouths out with soap, but as the audience you can’t help but think how innocent they truly are. Good Boys is a movie that will resonate with many in the audience, who likely went through some of these very same dilemmas in their own coming of age stories. Maybe not through paintball fights at a frat house, or crossing a busy freeway, but we each have our own unique stories that helped to mold us into who we are today. It’s funny how watching a film like this can make you reminisce on your own experiences, even if it isn’t on the big screen for all to see.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/good-boys/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Collector (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Arkin wants to smooth over the rough patch his family is currently going through. He seems like a hard working man that's trying to make a living by doing some housework for a family who lives out in the country. It turns out that Arkin has more problems than he lets on though. His wife, Lisa, has quite a pile of debt resting on her shoulders and the loan sharks want their share that very night. Knowing his paycheck isn't enough to pay for their debt, Arkin assures Lisa that he'll have the money by midnight. Arkin is actually a thief who has been scoping out his employer's property the entire time he's been working for him. With the family away on vacation, the safe behind the mirror in the couple's bedroom is ripe for the taking. Unbeknownst to Arkin, however, is that the family never left and somebody else beat him to the punch. A man who's known as The Collector has already broken into the house Arkin had his eye on. After a quick investigation, Arkin notices the traps The Collector has set up in nearly every room and by every exit. As Arkin weighs his options, he realizes he must try to help the family he originally intended to steal from in a race against time.
The Collector is a film that is somewhat hurt by its own hype. It's written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan (who also directs), the writing team who penned the last three Saw films (including part VI). News broke right before its release that the film was almost a prequel to Saw. In the horror community, being a part of the Saw franchise is a rather large achievement. Even if you're not a fan of the franchise, it's hard to deny how well the Saw films do at the box office as their gross revenue is sometimes up to ten times what the film's budget was. The down side is that The Collector seems to make this point blatantly obvious. The film gives off a sense of deja vu throughout its entire duration. The Collector's traps are very reminiscent of Jigsaw's traps, at least in the way they're set up (reverse bear trap in Saw compared to the bear trap scene in The Collector). The Collector also looks and feels like a Saw film. The quick edits that a lot of people expressed their dislike for in Saw are used more often than not in The Collector. Grainy and high contrast filters along with those quick edits make it a bit hard to distinguish what events are actually occurring on screen at times. The first ten minutes or so of the film feel like an extended music video. These qualities don't necessarily make the film bad, but a film that's advertised as being original shouldn't have so much in common with a well distinguished franchise in the same genre; let alone when some of the same people are involved. Something that may have been easily averted if the marketing campaign didn't throw that fact in the public's face.
With all that being said, the film still has enough originality going for it to bring in horror fans. While the film does have its flaws (the main one being, how'd The Collector have time to set up all these traps?), they actually don't take away from the overall enjoyment for the film. What The Collector collects is rather interesting and even with its similarities to Saw, it's an original horror film that isn't a remake. Something we don't see a lot of anymore. What also might make or break the deal for horror fans seeing this film is that it doesn't shy away from blood and guts. The bear trap sequence alone is rather gruesome, but you do get to see some intestines make a cameo. So this definitely isn't for the squeamish. The film did leave a few open-ended questions, but they don't seem to be negative. The most memorable one is more of a sense of wondering why a certain character did a certain act rather than it being a glaring mistake. If this gets turned into a franchise (which depending on its reception, it just might), we'll probably get answers in the sequel(s). The Collector also seemed to establish a bit of tension at times, while the closing moments of the film were similar to a seesaw. The events that unfold seem to be going in one direction, but then quickly shift and go in another direction.
TV spots are saying things like, "Horror has a new icon," and that The Collector is the best horror film to come out in years. While the latter could be debated, the first part of that statement could very well be true. I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing more of The Collector as I like the idea and the character. The film as a whole, however, may have let its influences shine brighter than its original aspects. In retrospect, The Collector is an entertaining horror film composed of a decent antagonist, standard acting, an original storyline, and a few buckets of gore.
The Collector is a film that is somewhat hurt by its own hype. It's written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan (who also directs), the writing team who penned the last three Saw films (including part VI). News broke right before its release that the film was almost a prequel to Saw. In the horror community, being a part of the Saw franchise is a rather large achievement. Even if you're not a fan of the franchise, it's hard to deny how well the Saw films do at the box office as their gross revenue is sometimes up to ten times what the film's budget was. The down side is that The Collector seems to make this point blatantly obvious. The film gives off a sense of deja vu throughout its entire duration. The Collector's traps are very reminiscent of Jigsaw's traps, at least in the way they're set up (reverse bear trap in Saw compared to the bear trap scene in The Collector). The Collector also looks and feels like a Saw film. The quick edits that a lot of people expressed their dislike for in Saw are used more often than not in The Collector. Grainy and high contrast filters along with those quick edits make it a bit hard to distinguish what events are actually occurring on screen at times. The first ten minutes or so of the film feel like an extended music video. These qualities don't necessarily make the film bad, but a film that's advertised as being original shouldn't have so much in common with a well distinguished franchise in the same genre; let alone when some of the same people are involved. Something that may have been easily averted if the marketing campaign didn't throw that fact in the public's face.
With all that being said, the film still has enough originality going for it to bring in horror fans. While the film does have its flaws (the main one being, how'd The Collector have time to set up all these traps?), they actually don't take away from the overall enjoyment for the film. What The Collector collects is rather interesting and even with its similarities to Saw, it's an original horror film that isn't a remake. Something we don't see a lot of anymore. What also might make or break the deal for horror fans seeing this film is that it doesn't shy away from blood and guts. The bear trap sequence alone is rather gruesome, but you do get to see some intestines make a cameo. So this definitely isn't for the squeamish. The film did leave a few open-ended questions, but they don't seem to be negative. The most memorable one is more of a sense of wondering why a certain character did a certain act rather than it being a glaring mistake. If this gets turned into a franchise (which depending on its reception, it just might), we'll probably get answers in the sequel(s). The Collector also seemed to establish a bit of tension at times, while the closing moments of the film were similar to a seesaw. The events that unfold seem to be going in one direction, but then quickly shift and go in another direction.
TV spots are saying things like, "Horror has a new icon," and that The Collector is the best horror film to come out in years. While the latter could be debated, the first part of that statement could very well be true. I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing more of The Collector as I like the idea and the character. The film as a whole, however, may have let its influences shine brighter than its original aspects. In retrospect, The Collector is an entertaining horror film composed of a decent antagonist, standard acting, an original storyline, and a few buckets of gore.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.