Search
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Perfect Stranger in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Leah Stevens needs to get away from Boston. Due to an article she published, her job as a journalist is over thanks to fears of a lawsuit coupled with an in-place restraining order. So when she comes across her old friend Emmy in a bar, the timing seems perfect. Emmy is coming out a bad relationship and she suggests the pair--once former roommates--move to rural Pennsylvania and start over. Leah gets a teaching position at the nearby school, and Emmy picks up a series of odd jobs. But their fresh start is jeopardized when a local woman, with a startling likeness to Leah, is attacked. Then Emmy vanishes, and Leah really starts to worry. Leah works with the local police, but quickly fears she may be under suspicion as well, as it rapidly becomes clear that Leah didn't know Emmy well at all. In fact, Leah is starting to wonder: did Emmy even exist?
This is Miranda's follow-on to [b:All the Missing Girls|23212667|All the Missing Girls|Megan Miranda|http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1452098621s/23212667.jpg|42755300], and I actually found myself liking THE PERFECT STRANGER even more. While GIRLS hooked you with its backward narrative shtick, STRANGER pulls you immediately with the strength of its story, and it never lets go. Everything in the novel is complicated and interrelated, it seems, and you're constantly digesting details and facts and trying to put these intricately interwoven pieces together, just as Leah is. Because she has a past as a reporter, she's great at digging through facts, but you also can't trust her as a narrator, and it puts you--the reader--in quite a bind. What is true? Who is real? It was a frustrating (in a good way) dilemma, and I loved it.
The novel gets progressively creepier as it unfolds: to the point that I found myself checking the curtains when I was up late at night (frantically reading the book, of course!). I kept wondering what on earth was going on and how everything could possibly fit together. At one point, there was a great plot twist that I totally didn't see coming. I love when that happens! The book kept me puzzling right up until the end. It's really quite spellbinding.
It reminded me a bit of a [a:Mary Kubica|7392948|Mary Kubica|http://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1447464986p2/7392948.jpg] novel; you really do start to doubt if Emmy exists. As mentioned, Leah is a very unreliable narrator in many ways. She brings her reporter instincts to this small town (despite trying to escape that part of her past), and it's truly fascinating watching her try to unravel the story. Her searches become really exciting, even if you don't completely trust her or know if you can believe her.
Everything ties together really well. The only downside for me was that the ending was a bit anticlimactic, but the "aha" moments when everything fits together are amazing. It's a really intricate and well-plotted novel. I stayed up late to finish it because I could not go to bed without knowing what had happened. I was more excited about finishing this book than Duke's defeat in the NCAA tournament - that should say a lot. :)
Overall, a very exciting and interesting (and often spooky!) thriller. Definitely recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 04/11/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This is Miranda's follow-on to [b:All the Missing Girls|23212667|All the Missing Girls|Megan Miranda|http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1452098621s/23212667.jpg|42755300], and I actually found myself liking THE PERFECT STRANGER even more. While GIRLS hooked you with its backward narrative shtick, STRANGER pulls you immediately with the strength of its story, and it never lets go. Everything in the novel is complicated and interrelated, it seems, and you're constantly digesting details and facts and trying to put these intricately interwoven pieces together, just as Leah is. Because she has a past as a reporter, she's great at digging through facts, but you also can't trust her as a narrator, and it puts you--the reader--in quite a bind. What is true? Who is real? It was a frustrating (in a good way) dilemma, and I loved it.
The novel gets progressively creepier as it unfolds: to the point that I found myself checking the curtains when I was up late at night (frantically reading the book, of course!). I kept wondering what on earth was going on and how everything could possibly fit together. At one point, there was a great plot twist that I totally didn't see coming. I love when that happens! The book kept me puzzling right up until the end. It's really quite spellbinding.
It reminded me a bit of a [a:Mary Kubica|7392948|Mary Kubica|http://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1447464986p2/7392948.jpg] novel; you really do start to doubt if Emmy exists. As mentioned, Leah is a very unreliable narrator in many ways. She brings her reporter instincts to this small town (despite trying to escape that part of her past), and it's truly fascinating watching her try to unravel the story. Her searches become really exciting, even if you don't completely trust her or know if you can believe her.
Everything ties together really well. The only downside for me was that the ending was a bit anticlimactic, but the "aha" moments when everything fits together are amazing. It's a really intricate and well-plotted novel. I stayed up late to finish it because I could not go to bed without knowing what had happened. I was more excited about finishing this book than Duke's defeat in the NCAA tournament - that should say a lot. :)
Overall, a very exciting and interesting (and often spooky!) thriller. Definitely recommend.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 04/11/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Fred Flarksy is a controversial journalist who likes to uncover the evil and corrupt in the world, when his paper is brought by a company that they themselves have uncovered as the "bad guy" he quits on the spot. Lance, his best friend, knows exactly what he needs to feel better, drink, steak, and a fundraiser with Boyz II Men.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
"i'd like to purchase some of your finest beer please"
Shout "Shazam!" into the sky and you're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens; blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and the speed of Mercury. Instantly elevated from whatever you were into your peak self; reborn with a crack of thunder, a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. It's a wonderfully novel and simple idea for a comic book character. Something that allows for a spectacular hero moment right before each conflict or feat; an epic bit of imagery to light up the night sky and electrify the frame. This transformation also perfectly captures the spirit of both this film and it's hero; a belief in the idea that even the most forgotten, marginalized and seemingly powerless person can change the world.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Recursion in Books
Jul 15, 2019
I want to start this review by saying that science fiction isn't my usual genre that I love to read. However, I loved Dark Matter by Blake Crouch, so I decided that I'd give Recursion by Blake Crouch a read since the synopsis intrigued me. I was absolutely blown away by Recursion!
Helena, a nueroscientist is working on a chair to help people with memory loss like her mother who suffers from Alzheimer's. She has it almost all figured out, but she lacks the funding to make her dream a reality. Funding comes in the form of Marcus Slade. Together, Slade and Helena work together to create a chair that can send people back in the past and change memories. However, when people start suffering from False Memory Syndrome due to the changing of memories, Helena wants to stop. Slade won't allow it. Together with Barry, who was forced to have his memories changed, Helena will stop at nothing to stop her memory chair from being used for bad, even if it means dying again and again.
I'm not a very scientific person. (In fact, science and math were my worse subjects in school.) This book does use a lot of scientific jargon that went way over my head at times, yet I was still very intrigued. There are enough context clues to figure out what's going on without all the scientific speak. I felt the plot was solid for Recursion, and scarily enough, I could actually picture this becoming a reality in the not too distant future. Blake Crouch has a knack for writing books that seem so lifelike and in the moment. There is plenty of action in Recursion, and there's also enough mystery to make the reader wonder what is going to happen next. Due to being able to go back to different memories and plotting different outcomes, Recursion is full of little plot twists. There's no cliff hangers in this book, and all my questions were answered by the last page.
The characters in Recursion were so very lifelike! Barry reminded me at first of a dad who loved his family, especially his daughter, very much. He seems like a down to Earth guy and just very well rounded. I admired tenacity to always want to make things right. I also loved Helena's character. I loved how she was willing to do whatever it took, including death and extreme pain, to try to make things right. Helena was an extremely intelligent woman, but she wasn't conceited about it. I felt like Slade's heart was in the right place, but greed took over. I felt like Slade was the perfect antagonist, and his personality reminded me of many people in power and those with a lot of money. I enjoyed reading about each character's story in each memory. I found that to be extremely interesting.
The pacing for Recursion was perfect. This book held my attention from the very first page until the very last word in the book. Not once did I ever become bored or lost while reading this book. I was hooked from the get-go, and I couldn't wait to read more of Recursion every time I was interrupted.
Trigger warnings for Recursion include profanity, mentions of drug use, alcohol use, profanity, sexual references (non graphic), death, violence, some gore, and murder.
Overall, Recursion is quite the read! It's got a thrilling plot and memorable characters throughout! I would love to see this book made into a movie. I think it would do very well! I would definitely recommend Recursion by Blake Crouch to anyone looking for a book that will keep them hooked from the beginning. Regardless of if you're a science fiction fan or not, Recursion is the kind of book that will please any reader.
Helena, a nueroscientist is working on a chair to help people with memory loss like her mother who suffers from Alzheimer's. She has it almost all figured out, but she lacks the funding to make her dream a reality. Funding comes in the form of Marcus Slade. Together, Slade and Helena work together to create a chair that can send people back in the past and change memories. However, when people start suffering from False Memory Syndrome due to the changing of memories, Helena wants to stop. Slade won't allow it. Together with Barry, who was forced to have his memories changed, Helena will stop at nothing to stop her memory chair from being used for bad, even if it means dying again and again.
I'm not a very scientific person. (In fact, science and math were my worse subjects in school.) This book does use a lot of scientific jargon that went way over my head at times, yet I was still very intrigued. There are enough context clues to figure out what's going on without all the scientific speak. I felt the plot was solid for Recursion, and scarily enough, I could actually picture this becoming a reality in the not too distant future. Blake Crouch has a knack for writing books that seem so lifelike and in the moment. There is plenty of action in Recursion, and there's also enough mystery to make the reader wonder what is going to happen next. Due to being able to go back to different memories and plotting different outcomes, Recursion is full of little plot twists. There's no cliff hangers in this book, and all my questions were answered by the last page.
The characters in Recursion were so very lifelike! Barry reminded me at first of a dad who loved his family, especially his daughter, very much. He seems like a down to Earth guy and just very well rounded. I admired tenacity to always want to make things right. I also loved Helena's character. I loved how she was willing to do whatever it took, including death and extreme pain, to try to make things right. Helena was an extremely intelligent woman, but she wasn't conceited about it. I felt like Slade's heart was in the right place, but greed took over. I felt like Slade was the perfect antagonist, and his personality reminded me of many people in power and those with a lot of money. I enjoyed reading about each character's story in each memory. I found that to be extremely interesting.
The pacing for Recursion was perfect. This book held my attention from the very first page until the very last word in the book. Not once did I ever become bored or lost while reading this book. I was hooked from the get-go, and I couldn't wait to read more of Recursion every time I was interrupted.
Trigger warnings for Recursion include profanity, mentions of drug use, alcohol use, profanity, sexual references (non graphic), death, violence, some gore, and murder.
Overall, Recursion is quite the read! It's got a thrilling plot and memorable characters throughout! I would love to see this book made into a movie. I think it would do very well! I would definitely recommend Recursion by Blake Crouch to anyone looking for a book that will keep them hooked from the beginning. Regardless of if you're a science fiction fan or not, Recursion is the kind of book that will please any reader.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 18, 2021 (Updated Mar 19, 2021)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First of all, it's a damn miracle that this even exists at all. A once mythical cut that just seemed like a fabricated idea from Snyder fans who couldn't quite except that Justice League (2017) was awful. It's no secret that the theatrical cut was riddled with issues, and of course, personal tragedy, that resulted in a messy final product. This extended cut aimed to restore Snyder's original vision, and right the wrongs of what came before, and it mostly succeeds.
I still believe that the DCEU should have invested in solo movies for all it's big players before tackling a huge event like this, but there comes a time where I have to accept that that isn't what happened, so I watched this with that in mind, and left my bitterness at the door.
Zack Snyder's Justice League is undeniably a far superior, and vastly different beast to its predecessor. The 4 hour+ runtime gives the narrative plenty of breathing space, and allows the audience to connect with these characters properly. The biggest benefactor of this is Cyborg. A character that was more or less tossed to the side before, is given so much backstory, that he is now an integral part of the films emotional core. The Flash is another character that hugely benefits. Whereas before he was relegated to comedy relief and almost useless in the grand scheme of things, here, he's a young man who grows throughout the story from a joker, into an instrumental part of saving the world. The balance between all of these characters is well done actually - Batman doesn't feel like a waste, Wonder Woman is back to being a raging badass instead of moping over Steve Trevor - All of the League members feel important, and each bring their own strengths. They are portrayed as an effective team.
Main antagonist Steppenwolf is much better realised. He visually looks a hundred times better than whatever the fuck we got back in 2017, and he feels like an actual threat. His evil scheme makes sense this time around whereas before it was an ill explained mess. It feels like the stakes are high.
The set pieces we get are pretty spectacular. The new stuff is a treat to watch, and the familiar stuff has been reworked so well. The action heavy scenes involving Steppenwolf in Themyscira, and when the League first take him on below Striker Island are absolutely thrilling. In the original cut, I'd argue that the scene immediately following Superman's revival was the most exciting in terms of action, but here, it's probably the most lackluster in comparison. It's spaced out nicely, and the screenplay is incredibly engaging. The humour is seldom but funny when it happens, and the more emotional moments are well executed. All of this combined results in a story that never feels like a drag. The four hours flew by pretty quickly, and it's all complimented by a wonderful music score.
In terms of wider DC material, there's a whole wealth of stuff for comic fans to enjoy - Darkseid using his angular beams, the introduction of Ryan Choi aka The Atom, Martian Manhunter, and the extended Knightmare sequence where Batman and The Joker converse about events that have happened in the past. All good stuff that makes the DCEU finally feel like a connected narrative.
Overall, Zack Snyder's Justice League does a pretty damn good job at delivering an event movie that is bittersweet. It's great to see Snyder's original vision realised (although I can understand how it may not have resonated with a wider audience - it's most definitely a movie for fans of DC comics), but it's all a setup for a sequel that will probably never happen, which is a great shame. This is what happens when studios stick their ore in too much!
Final note - it makes me really happy that Alfred addresses Superman as 'Master Kent'.
I still believe that the DCEU should have invested in solo movies for all it's big players before tackling a huge event like this, but there comes a time where I have to accept that that isn't what happened, so I watched this with that in mind, and left my bitterness at the door.
Zack Snyder's Justice League is undeniably a far superior, and vastly different beast to its predecessor. The 4 hour+ runtime gives the narrative plenty of breathing space, and allows the audience to connect with these characters properly. The biggest benefactor of this is Cyborg. A character that was more or less tossed to the side before, is given so much backstory, that he is now an integral part of the films emotional core. The Flash is another character that hugely benefits. Whereas before he was relegated to comedy relief and almost useless in the grand scheme of things, here, he's a young man who grows throughout the story from a joker, into an instrumental part of saving the world. The balance between all of these characters is well done actually - Batman doesn't feel like a waste, Wonder Woman is back to being a raging badass instead of moping over Steve Trevor - All of the League members feel important, and each bring their own strengths. They are portrayed as an effective team.
Main antagonist Steppenwolf is much better realised. He visually looks a hundred times better than whatever the fuck we got back in 2017, and he feels like an actual threat. His evil scheme makes sense this time around whereas before it was an ill explained mess. It feels like the stakes are high.
The set pieces we get are pretty spectacular. The new stuff is a treat to watch, and the familiar stuff has been reworked so well. The action heavy scenes involving Steppenwolf in Themyscira, and when the League first take him on below Striker Island are absolutely thrilling. In the original cut, I'd argue that the scene immediately following Superman's revival was the most exciting in terms of action, but here, it's probably the most lackluster in comparison. It's spaced out nicely, and the screenplay is incredibly engaging. The humour is seldom but funny when it happens, and the more emotional moments are well executed. All of this combined results in a story that never feels like a drag. The four hours flew by pretty quickly, and it's all complimented by a wonderful music score.
In terms of wider DC material, there's a whole wealth of stuff for comic fans to enjoy - Darkseid using his angular beams, the introduction of Ryan Choi aka The Atom, Martian Manhunter, and the extended Knightmare sequence where Batman and The Joker converse about events that have happened in the past. All good stuff that makes the DCEU finally feel like a connected narrative.
Overall, Zack Snyder's Justice League does a pretty damn good job at delivering an event movie that is bittersweet. It's great to see Snyder's original vision realised (although I can understand how it may not have resonated with a wider audience - it's most definitely a movie for fans of DC comics), but it's all a setup for a sequel that will probably never happen, which is a great shame. This is what happens when studios stick their ore in too much!
Final note - it makes me really happy that Alfred addresses Superman as 'Master Kent'.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Snyder Cut sets up so much for future Justice League adventures, and those things would have been good... but the film absolutely didn't need to be this long to still do that, some of the scenes were so drawn out that it became painful. (I like Jason Momoa getting hit with buckets of water as much as the next person, but even I didn't need that full scene of him standing on the dock in the waves. At one point I wondered if they'd shot extra footage for an aftershave commercial.)
Overall it had a much more serious tone to it, and I don't mind that in a superhero film, but then it goes and throws in the petshop/hotdog scene. I feel like it was meant to be funny, but almost everything about it stuck out like a sore thumb in comparison to the rest of the film. I saw someone say they thought this version of the film was funnier in general compared to the first, I'm not sure we watched the same movie.
If you read my reviews you'll be aware of my feelings on "bizarre" ratios. In things like The Lighthouse I can see why they go with certain aspect ratios, but unless they're being shown on a screen that is that size they're really not for me, it's a distraction. This is a very personal feeling of course, there are a lot of people who like the aesthetics and style choices around this sort of thing. For me though, I want that full screen experience, especially with this sort of blockbuster.
I'm one of these strange people that likes most superhero movies, I liked the various Fantastic Fours, even Green Lantern... and I enjoyed the original Justice League cut. I gave it 4/5. And while seeing everything that was cut out of it makes me feel like we were robbed, I still enjoyed that movie on a rewatch. I'm unlikely to sit through the epic version again by choice, whereas I probably would rewatch the first one.
I always find it a little baffling when it comes to DC and Marvel. For me, Marvel always got the films right, but the TV shows were just okay. And DC always got the TV shows right and their films were okay. (When I'm saying okay I mean they're watchable but I wouldn't need to rush to rewatch them.) That felt like something that was on the change. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam, all seemed to find a level that worked in a way I hadn't felt about their films in a while. I wanted to see them again, they mixed dramatic and fun in a way that Marvel have always been able to nail. But while this version of Justice League goes out and does its own thing, and that's perfectly acceptable, the tone felt wrong for the set of characters that were brought together... and when you put all the little niggles together from across the whole thing it leaves me with a film I'd be fine without.
Perhaps my rating of this is a little unfair, it has a lot of things I like in it after all. The negatives outweighed the bad in the end though, and as much as I like the Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman development, they wouldn't compel me to sit through it again. Not even in chunks.
Because this had a lot of different things to talk about it wasn't one of my usual reviews, you can find my full review here: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-movie.html
Overall it had a much more serious tone to it, and I don't mind that in a superhero film, but then it goes and throws in the petshop/hotdog scene. I feel like it was meant to be funny, but almost everything about it stuck out like a sore thumb in comparison to the rest of the film. I saw someone say they thought this version of the film was funnier in general compared to the first, I'm not sure we watched the same movie.
If you read my reviews you'll be aware of my feelings on "bizarre" ratios. In things like The Lighthouse I can see why they go with certain aspect ratios, but unless they're being shown on a screen that is that size they're really not for me, it's a distraction. This is a very personal feeling of course, there are a lot of people who like the aesthetics and style choices around this sort of thing. For me though, I want that full screen experience, especially with this sort of blockbuster.
I'm one of these strange people that likes most superhero movies, I liked the various Fantastic Fours, even Green Lantern... and I enjoyed the original Justice League cut. I gave it 4/5. And while seeing everything that was cut out of it makes me feel like we were robbed, I still enjoyed that movie on a rewatch. I'm unlikely to sit through the epic version again by choice, whereas I probably would rewatch the first one.
I always find it a little baffling when it comes to DC and Marvel. For me, Marvel always got the films right, but the TV shows were just okay. And DC always got the TV shows right and their films were okay. (When I'm saying okay I mean they're watchable but I wouldn't need to rush to rewatch them.) That felt like something that was on the change. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam, all seemed to find a level that worked in a way I hadn't felt about their films in a while. I wanted to see them again, they mixed dramatic and fun in a way that Marvel have always been able to nail. But while this version of Justice League goes out and does its own thing, and that's perfectly acceptable, the tone felt wrong for the set of characters that were brought together... and when you put all the little niggles together from across the whole thing it leaves me with a film I'd be fine without.
Perhaps my rating of this is a little unfair, it has a lot of things I like in it after all. The negatives outweighed the bad in the end though, and as much as I like the Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman development, they wouldn't compel me to sit through it again. Not even in chunks.
Because this had a lot of different things to talk about it wasn't one of my usual reviews, you can find my full review here: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-movie.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Classical Music Masters Vol. 1
Music and Entertainment
App
* Ranked #1 Classical Music App Worldwide! * Optimized for the latest iOS and devices! * App Store...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
mostlyinpyjamas (13 KP) rated It Only Happens in the Movies in Books
Nov 25, 2017
Another cracker by Holly Bourne
The blurb; Audrey is over romance. Since her parents relationship imploded her mother’s been catatonic, so she takes a cinema job to get out of the house. But there she meets wannabe film-maker Harry.
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).