Search
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A stunning portrait of friendship and comedy
To this day, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are still regarded as one of the greatest comedy duos. Their acts used slapstick comedy, cartoon violence and song to delight audiences. From 1927 all the way up to 1955, they performed these acts together both on screen and on stage.
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 8MM 2 (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 8MM 2 starts as we meet young lawyer David (Schaech and his future wife Tish (Heuring) in Budapest. While on their trip away the couple end up having a steamy threesome with Risa (Gorog) helping both of their needs in the bedroom. David finds himself having to impress Tish’s father Ambassador Harrington (Davison) while his other daughter Lynn (Benz) has already settled down.
When the couple receive photos of their threesome they try to figure out who took them leading them into the sexual underworld in Hungry. While trying to clean up the blackmailing the two find themselves being approached from all angles as they try to keep any political career undercover.
8MM 2 is a film with one of the most miss-leading titles in film history, it is advertised as a sequel to 8MM starring Nicolas Cage which is about going into the underworld of sex. This is a boring political drama cover up after a daughter and her fiancée end up in a sex tape and get blackmailed. Nothing about this makes any sense for it to be a sequel but only uses the name because of the standard below average story. to make matters worse this might as well just be a softcore film because you can pretty much guarantee there is more time when the women are naked more than actually clothed.
Actor Review
Johnathon Schaech: David is the young lawyer entering into a powerful family as he tries to rise up the ranks in the Hungarian Embassy. When he has a steamy threesome with his wife to be and a strange woman he finds himself having to go into the world of pornography to uncover the people trying to blackmail him. Johnathon is solid but basic in this role.
Lori Heuring: Tish is the wife to be for David, her father is the Ambassador making her have a high profile name in social circles. She ends up having to follow David into the underworld of the sex industry to find the tape from their night. Lori is solid in this role without being special.
Bruce Davison: Ambassador Harrington is the father of Tish he is highly respected and the night the two have together could find themselves being responsible for a problem in his career. Bruce gives us a very basic supporting performance that we just don’t see enough.
Julie Benz: Lynn is the sister of Tish that is the older one of the two who always wants to protect her younger sister. Julie is wasted in this supporting role.
Support Cast: 8MM 2 has a basic supporting cast where nearly all the female cast are naked with most not really having much going on.
Director Review: J.S. Cardone – J.S. really doesn’t give us a worthy sequel that lacks any of the important parts needed.
Mystery: 8MM 2 doesn’t really offer us a mystery because we don’t see what the big mystery is.
Thriller: 8MM 2 doesn’t keep us on edge at all.
Settings: 8MM 2 is set in Hungary without being anything special.
Special Effects: 8MM 2 has basic effects when needed but nothing fancy.
Suggestion: 8MM 2 is one just to avoid really because it is terrible. (Avoid)
Best Part: Final Twist.
Worst Part: Pointless amount of nudity.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
Tagline: From The Last Kiss To The Last Breath… From The First Kiss To The Last Breath.
Trivia: Much of the sex depicted is actual not simulated.
Overall: Dreadful sequel that really doesn’t work.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/12/franchise-weekend-8mm-2-2005/
When the couple receive photos of their threesome they try to figure out who took them leading them into the sexual underworld in Hungry. While trying to clean up the blackmailing the two find themselves being approached from all angles as they try to keep any political career undercover.
8MM 2 is a film with one of the most miss-leading titles in film history, it is advertised as a sequel to 8MM starring Nicolas Cage which is about going into the underworld of sex. This is a boring political drama cover up after a daughter and her fiancée end up in a sex tape and get blackmailed. Nothing about this makes any sense for it to be a sequel but only uses the name because of the standard below average story. to make matters worse this might as well just be a softcore film because you can pretty much guarantee there is more time when the women are naked more than actually clothed.
Actor Review
Johnathon Schaech: David is the young lawyer entering into a powerful family as he tries to rise up the ranks in the Hungarian Embassy. When he has a steamy threesome with his wife to be and a strange woman he finds himself having to go into the world of pornography to uncover the people trying to blackmail him. Johnathon is solid but basic in this role.
Lori Heuring: Tish is the wife to be for David, her father is the Ambassador making her have a high profile name in social circles. She ends up having to follow David into the underworld of the sex industry to find the tape from their night. Lori is solid in this role without being special.
Bruce Davison: Ambassador Harrington is the father of Tish he is highly respected and the night the two have together could find themselves being responsible for a problem in his career. Bruce gives us a very basic supporting performance that we just don’t see enough.
Julie Benz: Lynn is the sister of Tish that is the older one of the two who always wants to protect her younger sister. Julie is wasted in this supporting role.
Support Cast: 8MM 2 has a basic supporting cast where nearly all the female cast are naked with most not really having much going on.
Director Review: J.S. Cardone – J.S. really doesn’t give us a worthy sequel that lacks any of the important parts needed.
Mystery: 8MM 2 doesn’t really offer us a mystery because we don’t see what the big mystery is.
Thriller: 8MM 2 doesn’t keep us on edge at all.
Settings: 8MM 2 is set in Hungary without being anything special.
Special Effects: 8MM 2 has basic effects when needed but nothing fancy.
Suggestion: 8MM 2 is one just to avoid really because it is terrible. (Avoid)
Best Part: Final Twist.
Worst Part: Pointless amount of nudity.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
Tagline: From The Last Kiss To The Last Breath… From The First Kiss To The Last Breath.
Trivia: Much of the sex depicted is actual not simulated.
Overall: Dreadful sequel that really doesn’t work.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/12/franchise-weekend-8mm-2-2005/
Deborah (162 KP) rated The White Queen (The Plantagenet and Tudor Novels, #2) in Books
Dec 19, 2018
Not quite sure why I decided to read this as the only other book I've read by Gregory was The Other Boleyn Girl, which I thought was pretty dreadful. I suppose I find it difficult to keep away from anything connected with The Wars of the Roses; I certainly found that I'd read almost every book listed in the bibliography and could have recommended a few more that might have been beneficial for the author to have perused.....
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
Bill & Hillary : So This Is That Thing Called Love
Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince
Book
On the campus of Yale University, in 1970, an "odd couple," Hillary Rodham and Bill ("Bubba")...
Tecarta Bible
Book and Reference
App
The Tecarta Bible is a beautiful, easy to use, full featured Bible app designed for quick...
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Secret Silver Songs in Books
Jun 28, 2020
Once again, the versatile Jordan Elizabeth returns to the fantasy/paranormal genre with a unique novel, Secret Silver Songs. With vampire-like men and demon-like creatures, the story takes the reader on a journey from an idyllic island to ruined cities, death and destruction.
Protagonist, Jemilla, is the daughter of the city's Singer - a man who can protect the city through the power of song. Life on the island is calm and peaceful; there is no crime, there is no danger, there is no fighting; so, no one was prepared for an invasion of blood-drinking Thistly. When her father is killed along with the majority of the population, there is no one left to save the island. Only men could become Singers, or so they claimed, but Jemilla is hiding a secret - she can Sing too.
At the beginning of the novel, Jemilla comes across as an anxious teenager, having been plagued by an overactive imagination for most of her life. Yet, as the story goes on, her frightening thoughts appear to be not as imaginary as she originally believed. A silver woman that no one but Jamilla can see taunts her daily and seems to want Jemilla to fail in her quest to save the island from the Thistly. Mid-story, however, alliances appear to change and Jemilla must figure out which team the silver woman is playing for and discover the truth about her home island.
From the very first chapter, Jordan Elizabeth captures the reader's attention with fast-paced action that never stills until the Epilogue. Taking aspects of history, such as rules for women written by men, the author subliminally advocates for women's rights. Secret Silver Songs demonstrates that enemies can be beaten but also that your true enemy may not be who you expect. Above all, never underestimate the power of song.
Protagonist, Jemilla, is the daughter of the city's Singer - a man who can protect the city through the power of song. Life on the island is calm and peaceful; there is no crime, there is no danger, there is no fighting; so, no one was prepared for an invasion of blood-drinking Thistly. When her father is killed along with the majority of the population, there is no one left to save the island. Only men could become Singers, or so they claimed, but Jemilla is hiding a secret - she can Sing too.
At the beginning of the novel, Jemilla comes across as an anxious teenager, having been plagued by an overactive imagination for most of her life. Yet, as the story goes on, her frightening thoughts appear to be not as imaginary as she originally believed. A silver woman that no one but Jamilla can see taunts her daily and seems to want Jemilla to fail in her quest to save the island from the Thistly. Mid-story, however, alliances appear to change and Jemilla must figure out which team the silver woman is playing for and discover the truth about her home island.
From the very first chapter, Jordan Elizabeth captures the reader's attention with fast-paced action that never stills until the Epilogue. Taking aspects of history, such as rules for women written by men, the author subliminally advocates for women's rights. Secret Silver Songs demonstrates that enemies can be beaten but also that your true enemy may not be who you expect. Above all, never underestimate the power of song.
Powerhouse: The Untold Story of Hollywood's Creative Artists Agency
Book
An astonishing—and astonishingly entertaining—history of Hollywood’s transformation over the...
Biography business theatre
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Robber Knight in Books
Sep 10, 2019
When you are fighting for the freedom of your people, falling in love with your enemy is not a great idea. Or is it? Ayla has to defend her castle and her people all on her own, with nobody to help her but a dark warrior she hates with all her heart.
Sir Reuben, the dreaded robber knight, has long been Ayla’s deadliest enemy. He has prayed on her and her people ever since her father fell ill, and she swore he would hang for his crimes. Now they are both trapped in her castle as the army of a far greater enemy approaches, and they have only one chance: stand together, or fall.
This book wasn’t bad, honestly. I’m a huge fan of historical fiction, and it had been awhile since I’ve read a medieval love story, so that was a nice change of pace.
The author is a historian, so there are a lot of little things in this book that you don’t see in a lot of other historical romance books. For instance,you can’t pull out arrows because there are often barbs attached to cause fatal wounds if pulled out. I did like learning about all of these facts. But sometimes Thier lets the historian in him gets the best of him, but more on that later.
Lady Ayla was a pretty interesting character. Headstrong and wise for her years, she is very noble and progressive. She has all of the makings for a great leader– with the exception of knowledge. I loved how kind and committed she was to her people and I love the fact that she has some spunk. I mean, if I’m getting robbed in the forest by this random stranger, then I hope I would swear him out too (of course, if I could beat him up and get away, then that’s even better, but Ayla doesn’t have much self-defense skills). But there were many times that she was annoying, like her insistence on being near battles, even before she started treating the sick. And how she tried to manage Sir Isenbard during battle. She had called on him for help because he was an experienced knight, and now she was questioning his commands and strategies in the heat of battle!
Mostly, though, I really did like Ayla. She defines the idea of nobility. With war inevitable, she’s willing to ride personally to the edges of her land to warn her subjects and she is always at the outskirts of battle to help care for the wounded. She invites everyone into the castle for their safety and rations herself as well as the others to conserve food. She’s even willing to corrupt herself to save her people.
Reuben is an excellent character as well, although it did take me awhile to like him. In the beginning he fell a little flat. It’s clear that he used to be a knight but something happened and now he robs people for his own greed. A near-death experience and being saved by Lady Ayla reawakens the humanity in him. And apparently also some depth.
In the beginning of the book he spends a lot of his time admiring his loot and laughing about his victims, who thought they had a right to steal from him. But that’s all he does. We have no real insight into his character or backstory until after he’s in Ayla’s care. Only then are there hints of a bad history where he had been arrested many times, been tortured, and had at one point been a member of respectable society. If it weren’t for the fact that I liked Ayla’a character and the plot so far, I probably would have stopped reading.
Thier is a writer who has really good potential in becoming a great romance writer, especially for historical fiction. The plots have some unique twists that are augmented by his knowledge of history and after Reuben’s character shaped up, he was an excellent love interest. But there is one huge problem with this story: the footnotes.
There are so many footnotes throughout most of the book that I feel like I’m reading a history textbook, which is not good when I usually read romance novels to take a break from homework. Not only are they distracting and unnecessary, but they are also rude and condescending. Sure, sometimes they were useful, like in explaining the references to the seven princes of hell. Another one was a pretty funny anecdote about how one of his readers had actually confirmed that lard burns and that burning arrows work because they had actually done it. There is also a lot of wit throughout the footnotes which is pretty amusing. But most of the time, they were annoying.
For instance, Robert Thier thought it was necessary to include a footnote about how witches were considered bad during medieval times. Seriously? Even if someone failed history, we know that witches are not considered fine, upstanding citizens. Or maybe he thinks all of us have been locked in our rooms with no books, internet or television for our entire lives and for the month of October we all miraculously fell into a coma so we couldn’t see the giant blow-up witch in the neighbor’s yard. And then we’d all wake up singing Christmas carols after the month long coma without a care in the world because this happens every year so we don’t know what a witch is. (I’m developing a conspiracy theory about how these strange comas was caused by witchcraft.)
Maybe Thier assumed that instead of us thinking Reuben was scared of witches when he wondered if Ayla was one, we just thought he was commenting on how much Ayla looked like Sandra Bullock.
And one of the footnotes was just plain offensive. Here is the line of text that the footnote is attached to: “Heel! Abominable villain! You dare defy me?” (page 74)
Now, here’s the footnote: “Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but this doesn’t refer to high heels. It is a medieval term for a very nasty person.”
Excuse me? Did you just assume that I thought it meant high heels and that would make me excited? What world do you live in?
Apparently he thinks “the ladies” are so dumb that we are incapable of taking context clues and we immediately think everything relates back to fashion. Maybe I didn’t know it meant “very nasty person”, but it’s pretty clear it’s a swear or insult of sometime, not a freaking Jimmy Choo. Does he just imagine us thinking high heel every time we hear the word?
“She broke his nose with the heel of her hand.” Oh. High heel!
“Heel, fido! I said heel!” Oh. High heel!
“It will take one or two days for your cut to heal.” Oh. High heel! (Because if he thinks we don’t understand the difference between uncomfortable footwear and an insult, then he probably thinks we can’t spell, either).
But hey, at least Robert Thier thinks women can memorize stuff, because the footnote links stop as the vocabulary is repeated instead of new terms being introduced.
Aside from the footnotes, I really do like this book, and I can’t wait to read the second part of it, which I’ll read soon. Thier still has a long way to go, but I think after he has more experience, he’ll write some great books.
Sir Reuben, the dreaded robber knight, has long been Ayla’s deadliest enemy. He has prayed on her and her people ever since her father fell ill, and she swore he would hang for his crimes. Now they are both trapped in her castle as the army of a far greater enemy approaches, and they have only one chance: stand together, or fall.
This book wasn’t bad, honestly. I’m a huge fan of historical fiction, and it had been awhile since I’ve read a medieval love story, so that was a nice change of pace.
The author is a historian, so there are a lot of little things in this book that you don’t see in a lot of other historical romance books. For instance,you can’t pull out arrows because there are often barbs attached to cause fatal wounds if pulled out. I did like learning about all of these facts. But sometimes Thier lets the historian in him gets the best of him, but more on that later.
Lady Ayla was a pretty interesting character. Headstrong and wise for her years, she is very noble and progressive. She has all of the makings for a great leader– with the exception of knowledge. I loved how kind and committed she was to her people and I love the fact that she has some spunk. I mean, if I’m getting robbed in the forest by this random stranger, then I hope I would swear him out too (of course, if I could beat him up and get away, then that’s even better, but Ayla doesn’t have much self-defense skills). But there were many times that she was annoying, like her insistence on being near battles, even before she started treating the sick. And how she tried to manage Sir Isenbard during battle. She had called on him for help because he was an experienced knight, and now she was questioning his commands and strategies in the heat of battle!
Mostly, though, I really did like Ayla. She defines the idea of nobility. With war inevitable, she’s willing to ride personally to the edges of her land to warn her subjects and she is always at the outskirts of battle to help care for the wounded. She invites everyone into the castle for their safety and rations herself as well as the others to conserve food. She’s even willing to corrupt herself to save her people.
Reuben is an excellent character as well, although it did take me awhile to like him. In the beginning he fell a little flat. It’s clear that he used to be a knight but something happened and now he robs people for his own greed. A near-death experience and being saved by Lady Ayla reawakens the humanity in him. And apparently also some depth.
In the beginning of the book he spends a lot of his time admiring his loot and laughing about his victims, who thought they had a right to steal from him. But that’s all he does. We have no real insight into his character or backstory until after he’s in Ayla’s care. Only then are there hints of a bad history where he had been arrested many times, been tortured, and had at one point been a member of respectable society. If it weren’t for the fact that I liked Ayla’a character and the plot so far, I probably would have stopped reading.
Thier is a writer who has really good potential in becoming a great romance writer, especially for historical fiction. The plots have some unique twists that are augmented by his knowledge of history and after Reuben’s character shaped up, he was an excellent love interest. But there is one huge problem with this story: the footnotes.
There are so many footnotes throughout most of the book that I feel like I’m reading a history textbook, which is not good when I usually read romance novels to take a break from homework. Not only are they distracting and unnecessary, but they are also rude and condescending. Sure, sometimes they were useful, like in explaining the references to the seven princes of hell. Another one was a pretty funny anecdote about how one of his readers had actually confirmed that lard burns and that burning arrows work because they had actually done it. There is also a lot of wit throughout the footnotes which is pretty amusing. But most of the time, they were annoying.
For instance, Robert Thier thought it was necessary to include a footnote about how witches were considered bad during medieval times. Seriously? Even if someone failed history, we know that witches are not considered fine, upstanding citizens. Or maybe he thinks all of us have been locked in our rooms with no books, internet or television for our entire lives and for the month of October we all miraculously fell into a coma so we couldn’t see the giant blow-up witch in the neighbor’s yard. And then we’d all wake up singing Christmas carols after the month long coma without a care in the world because this happens every year so we don’t know what a witch is. (I’m developing a conspiracy theory about how these strange comas was caused by witchcraft.)
Maybe Thier assumed that instead of us thinking Reuben was scared of witches when he wondered if Ayla was one, we just thought he was commenting on how much Ayla looked like Sandra Bullock.
And one of the footnotes was just plain offensive. Here is the line of text that the footnote is attached to: “Heel! Abominable villain! You dare defy me?” (page 74)
Now, here’s the footnote: “Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but this doesn’t refer to high heels. It is a medieval term for a very nasty person.”
Excuse me? Did you just assume that I thought it meant high heels and that would make me excited? What world do you live in?
Apparently he thinks “the ladies” are so dumb that we are incapable of taking context clues and we immediately think everything relates back to fashion. Maybe I didn’t know it meant “very nasty person”, but it’s pretty clear it’s a swear or insult of sometime, not a freaking Jimmy Choo. Does he just imagine us thinking high heel every time we hear the word?
“She broke his nose with the heel of her hand.” Oh. High heel!
“Heel, fido! I said heel!” Oh. High heel!
“It will take one or two days for your cut to heal.” Oh. High heel! (Because if he thinks we don’t understand the difference between uncomfortable footwear and an insult, then he probably thinks we can’t spell, either).
But hey, at least Robert Thier thinks women can memorize stuff, because the footnote links stop as the vocabulary is repeated instead of new terms being introduced.
Aside from the footnotes, I really do like this book, and I can’t wait to read the second part of it, which I’ll read soon. Thier still has a long way to go, but I think after he has more experience, he’ll write some great books.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Dark Crimes (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Dark Crimes starts when Tadek (Carrey) still investigating the murder of a police officer, gets a new lead when Kozlov (Csokas) writes a new book which has an eerily similarity to the murder, leading him to take a dangerous road investigating the murder, which includes challenge the former girlfriend Kasia (Gainsbourg).
The investigation has plenty of ties to the secret sex club known as the cage, where the men get to do whatever they want to the women, Tadek must put his professional and person life on the line to get to the bottom of this investigations.
Thoughts on Dark Crimes
Characters – Tadek is a police officer, he is preparing for retirement (I think) only he wants to solve one final case, which involves the murder of a fellow officer, he goes down dangerous paths which put his career on the line, his marriage on the line, hoping to find the answers. Kozlov is an author that has written a book that sounds too similar to the unsolved case, he becomes the target of the investigation because of his history with the known sex club. Kasia is a former worker in the club, she does have a connection to Kozlov and the victim.
Performances – Jim Carrey is an actor that I like seeing him doing serious roles, sadly, this is one of his worst performances in a long time, he can keep the accent up jumping around all over the place. Marton Csokas usually does well in film, but because the character isn’t very interesting, he struggles to keep our attention. Charlotte Gainsbourg disappoints too, she does everything we expect her to without making the impact.
Story – The story follows a detective that is investigating the murder of a fellow officer that could have found the confession inside a novel, which leads him to target the author in search for the truth. The problem here is we get slow moving conversations which don’t go anywhere, we don’t get into the evidence of the case, it just seems to be watching one man starting to go too far in his search. The case doesn’t seem long enough to make feature film story either.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows the investigation into the murder of a police officer which might be opened up again, it never feels urgent either.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show how the club could be easily accessed without needing to be too far away.
Scene of the Movie – Nothing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The dragging story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the worst crime stories because it just never feels like the case is that important.
Overall: Just a drag.
The investigation has plenty of ties to the secret sex club known as the cage, where the men get to do whatever they want to the women, Tadek must put his professional and person life on the line to get to the bottom of this investigations.
Thoughts on Dark Crimes
Characters – Tadek is a police officer, he is preparing for retirement (I think) only he wants to solve one final case, which involves the murder of a fellow officer, he goes down dangerous paths which put his career on the line, his marriage on the line, hoping to find the answers. Kozlov is an author that has written a book that sounds too similar to the unsolved case, he becomes the target of the investigation because of his history with the known sex club. Kasia is a former worker in the club, she does have a connection to Kozlov and the victim.
Performances – Jim Carrey is an actor that I like seeing him doing serious roles, sadly, this is one of his worst performances in a long time, he can keep the accent up jumping around all over the place. Marton Csokas usually does well in film, but because the character isn’t very interesting, he struggles to keep our attention. Charlotte Gainsbourg disappoints too, she does everything we expect her to without making the impact.
Story – The story follows a detective that is investigating the murder of a fellow officer that could have found the confession inside a novel, which leads him to target the author in search for the truth. The problem here is we get slow moving conversations which don’t go anywhere, we don’t get into the evidence of the case, it just seems to be watching one man starting to go too far in his search. The case doesn’t seem long enough to make feature film story either.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows the investigation into the murder of a police officer which might be opened up again, it never feels urgent either.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show how the club could be easily accessed without needing to be too far away.
Scene of the Movie – Nothing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The dragging story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the worst crime stories because it just never feels like the case is that important.
Overall: Just a drag.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghostbusters (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I ain't afraid of no reboot
So it’s here. One of the most reviled films of the decade before it was even released; the Ghostbusters reboot has a tough job persuading fans of the original films and newcomers alike that it’s worth their time.
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/