Search
Search results
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Operation Avalanche (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
You’ve heard me say it before. I’ll say it again. Before this year is out, I’ll say it in perhaps another article. The ‘found footage genre’ of movies was played out in perhaps its most notable appearance as well as its debut in the original ‘Blair Witch Project’. Now they’re gearing-up for another round of ‘beating a dead horse’ with a remake would you believe? However, I’m not here writing this article to go on and on and plague your eyes with an entire article complaining about the issue. No. Why you ask? For the unique reason which is since I’ve been writing reviews for movies, ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ has given me the good fortune to screen movies incorporating said genre that present ORIGINAL ideas. Today’s film for your consideration does so in the form of a unique period piece incorporating one of the most notorious conspiracy theories in the world with a pivotal moment in history. Not just in American history but global history.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Sausage Party (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Utterly Ridiculous
Just when Sharknado: the 4th Awakens made you think film-making couldn’t get any more ridiculous, a movie like Sausage Party comes along to remind you that Hollywood can always go that one step further to mind-boggling peculiarity.
Of course, that’s not always a bad thing, there have been countless weird and wacky films over the years that have gone on to become cult classics – look at Kick-Ass or even Pulp Fiction for examples of that. But for every Pulp Fiction there’s a Sharknado. So is Sausage Party good weird or as stale as a month-old bagel?
From the mind of Seth Rogen, Sausage Party is a strictly adults only animation that combines hugely offensive language and racial stereotypes with surprisingly meaningful religious undertones. And do you know what? It’s a breath of fresh air.
Life is good for all the food items that occupy the shelves at the local supermarket. Frank (Seth Rogen) the sausage, Brenda (Kristen Wiig) the hot dog bun, Teresa Taco and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) can’t wait to go home with a happy customer. Soon, their world comes crashing down as poor Frank learns the horrifying truth that he will eventually become a meal. After warning his pals about their similar fate, the panicked perishables devise a plan to escape from their human enemies.
Directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan take Rogen’s intriguing premise and inject a warmly familiar animation style, distancing itself just enough to make any comparisons simply inconceivable. Sausage Party is like nothing you will have ever seen.
The voice-acting is great too. Rogen plays his usual film staple – in sausage form – with the spicy Salma Hayek outdoing everyone else as a lustful taco. Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Michael Cera and Jonah Hill also lend their familiar voices to a hot-dog bun, a bottle of spirit and two other frankfurters respectively.
Elsewhere, the comedy, for the most part, hits the spot. As dreadful as it sounds, the racial stereotyping works incredibly well in food form. British tea, Mexican taco shells and German sauerkraut will have you rolling about the aisles with their outrageous vulgarity, but everyone needs to release their inner teenager once in a while.
Unfortunately, the films standout sequence has already been shown in the trailer – a side-splitting food-eye view of a normal kitchen, before every edible item is butchered; that poor Irish potato didn’t stand a chance. This is a real shame as the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up to the standard of that scene.
Nevertheless, there’ll be chuckles throughout as numerous celebrities are parodied in food form. One in particular, immortalised in chewing gum, is incredibly well thought out.
And that’s where Sausage Party succeeds the most. Underneath the polished animation and crude humour, this film is actually kind of clever. It tackles religion, war, race, sexuality and food waste very well indeed and that’s something the genre doesn’t ask for. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not quite as funny as the trailer would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/03/utterly-ridiculous-sausage-party-review/
Of course, that’s not always a bad thing, there have been countless weird and wacky films over the years that have gone on to become cult classics – look at Kick-Ass or even Pulp Fiction for examples of that. But for every Pulp Fiction there’s a Sharknado. So is Sausage Party good weird or as stale as a month-old bagel?
From the mind of Seth Rogen, Sausage Party is a strictly adults only animation that combines hugely offensive language and racial stereotypes with surprisingly meaningful religious undertones. And do you know what? It’s a breath of fresh air.
Life is good for all the food items that occupy the shelves at the local supermarket. Frank (Seth Rogen) the sausage, Brenda (Kristen Wiig) the hot dog bun, Teresa Taco and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) can’t wait to go home with a happy customer. Soon, their world comes crashing down as poor Frank learns the horrifying truth that he will eventually become a meal. After warning his pals about their similar fate, the panicked perishables devise a plan to escape from their human enemies.
Directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan take Rogen’s intriguing premise and inject a warmly familiar animation style, distancing itself just enough to make any comparisons simply inconceivable. Sausage Party is like nothing you will have ever seen.
The voice-acting is great too. Rogen plays his usual film staple – in sausage form – with the spicy Salma Hayek outdoing everyone else as a lustful taco. Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Michael Cera and Jonah Hill also lend their familiar voices to a hot-dog bun, a bottle of spirit and two other frankfurters respectively.
Elsewhere, the comedy, for the most part, hits the spot. As dreadful as it sounds, the racial stereotyping works incredibly well in food form. British tea, Mexican taco shells and German sauerkraut will have you rolling about the aisles with their outrageous vulgarity, but everyone needs to release their inner teenager once in a while.
Unfortunately, the films standout sequence has already been shown in the trailer – a side-splitting food-eye view of a normal kitchen, before every edible item is butchered; that poor Irish potato didn’t stand a chance. This is a real shame as the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up to the standard of that scene.
Nevertheless, there’ll be chuckles throughout as numerous celebrities are parodied in food form. One in particular, immortalised in chewing gum, is incredibly well thought out.
And that’s where Sausage Party succeeds the most. Underneath the polished animation and crude humour, this film is actually kind of clever. It tackles religion, war, race, sexuality and food waste very well indeed and that’s something the genre doesn’t ask for. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not quite as funny as the trailer would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/03/utterly-ridiculous-sausage-party-review/
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Silence for the Dead in Books
Mar 29, 2018
Good ghost story, slow dragged out ending
Anything to do with a horror ghost theme and an asylum has to be good right? Well, yes and no. The book was somewhat enjoyable to read but it had its’ moments.
The plot itself was good. It had the elements of a good gothic theme - not scary enough to make people read it in daytime (seriously?) but it had some good decent creep factor in it. It’s enough to set the mood and theme of the book but nothing to make the skin crawl. The element of mystery was also there and the ghost story aspect was good - nothing to blind side you - except perhaps for a little twist in the end (with where the ghost was and who was it manipulating etc etc). It’s pretty much a stable plot with all the main points closed (or is it? *queue creepy organ music*) so I’d have to say the gothic ghost story was what was in it for me.
Character wise. Kitty is likable. She’s resourceful, and a survivor from horrible abuse. Big applause for her for being strong and able to stand up and survive through various ordeals. Captain Mabry stood out for me because I enjoyed reading about his character. He seemed to be the strong stable silent type in the asylum where you have various patients with various issues (most were casualties of World War One) and there was a certain calmness about him that made him likable.
It’s pretty much obvious Kitty and Jack were to be together. The romance aspect in the book was all right. Necessary? I’m not sure perhaps. It’s not really for me. When their romance was more cemented was where the book was starting to take a slight turn downhill.
So near the ending when everything was revealed, all plot holes start to close. Sometimes, depending on the writing, you can stretch it out and make it interesting. Or you can make it drag. This one, unfortunately drags. We’re done with the ghosts, everything was answered, and the last 30 pages or so I just wanted the book to end. The romance of Kitty and Jack intensify and this is where intense eye rolling is also induced. Dear Lord, am I reading this just to see if there’s a scary twist at the end? Or am I wasting my time? Well sadly, I wasted my time. It was good to see what happened to characters like Mabry, and even Matron, but it just dragged way too much. Yeah okay we get it Kitty and Jack forever. Why do we need so many pages of this, am I suddenly reading a romance now?
Other than the ghost story in this book, the romance nearly killed it for me and a dragged out ending. Perhaps a nice twist in the ending would be nice. Or maybe skim the 30 pages and be done. I would say take it or leave it with this book. It was moderately enjoyable for me.
The plot itself was good. It had the elements of a good gothic theme - not scary enough to make people read it in daytime (seriously?) but it had some good decent creep factor in it. It’s enough to set the mood and theme of the book but nothing to make the skin crawl. The element of mystery was also there and the ghost story aspect was good - nothing to blind side you - except perhaps for a little twist in the end (with where the ghost was and who was it manipulating etc etc). It’s pretty much a stable plot with all the main points closed (or is it? *queue creepy organ music*) so I’d have to say the gothic ghost story was what was in it for me.
Character wise. Kitty is likable. She’s resourceful, and a survivor from horrible abuse. Big applause for her for being strong and able to stand up and survive through various ordeals. Captain Mabry stood out for me because I enjoyed reading about his character. He seemed to be the strong stable silent type in the asylum where you have various patients with various issues (most were casualties of World War One) and there was a certain calmness about him that made him likable.
It’s pretty much obvious Kitty and Jack were to be together. The romance aspect in the book was all right. Necessary? I’m not sure perhaps. It’s not really for me. When their romance was more cemented was where the book was starting to take a slight turn downhill.
So near the ending when everything was revealed, all plot holes start to close. Sometimes, depending on the writing, you can stretch it out and make it interesting. Or you can make it drag. This one, unfortunately drags. We’re done with the ghosts, everything was answered, and the last 30 pages or so I just wanted the book to end. The romance of Kitty and Jack intensify and this is where intense eye rolling is also induced. Dear Lord, am I reading this just to see if there’s a scary twist at the end? Or am I wasting my time? Well sadly, I wasted my time. It was good to see what happened to characters like Mabry, and even Matron, but it just dragged way too much. Yeah okay we get it Kitty and Jack forever. Why do we need so many pages of this, am I suddenly reading a romance now?
Other than the ghost story in this book, the romance nearly killed it for me and a dragged out ending. Perhaps a nice twist in the ending would be nice. Or maybe skim the 30 pages and be done. I would say take it or leave it with this book. It was moderately enjoyable for me.
Primal Incinerators Of Moral Matrix by Tetragrammacide
Album Watch
IRON BONEHEAD PRODUCTIONS is proud to present TETRAGRAMMACIDE's massively anticipated debut album,...
metal
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Too slow in parts
The Hunger Games series has become something of a worldwide phenomenon over the last few years, with over $1bn in takings between two films, success is a bit of an understatement.
A year after the critically acclaimed Catching Fire, director Francis Lawrence returns with the first part of Suzanne Collins’ underwhelming finale – Mockingjay, but can it continue with the series’ success and improve on the lacklustre novel?
Partially is the short answer. Lawrence continues to provide a slick environment in which the film resides and commands the best from the actors, but severe pacing issues occasionally stop the movie dead in its tracks.
Mockingjay begins just hours after the end of the second film with Jennifer Lawrence becoming a completely deflated Katniss Everdeen when she realises that Peeta wasn’t rescued with her in the arena.
She is now hiding out in District 13, along with a host of familiar faces including Elizabeth Banks’ brilliant Effie Trinket who provides the majority of the film’s comedic moments – though these are few and far between this time around. The late Philip Seymour Hoffman also returns as Plutarch Heavensbee and completely commands the screen in every scene.
However, the standout performance doesn’t belong to one of the old favourites. Julianne Moore enters the series as President Alma Coin and is a complete joy, her warm yet steely persona is engaging and mesmerising and her character promises to be even more intriguing in the next instalment.
It’s also nice to see Liam Hemsworth take on a more central role as Gale, which leaves Josh Hutcherson’s whiny Peeta very much in the background.
The film centres around the creation of numerous propaganda videos, each designed to threaten the Capitol and President Snow, played by such a convincing Donald Sutherland you actually believe he is evil, made by the rebellion to show they are fighting back.
The lack of a games for a focus point could’ve had a huge impact on this film’s popularity, but Francis Lawrence gets around the lack of them with style and flair, blending truly horrific images of war with those of running water, forests and wild animals – all the while showing us how even in the darkest of times, there is beauty in this world.
Moreover, the special effects have once again been stepped up a gear. The onslaught of the Capitol’s bombers is realised beautifully and really drives home how brutal this film can be in parts. It is the first in the series where its 12A certification may have been slightly too lenient, with images of Snow’s increasing brutality proving a shock to the system.
Unfortunately, the decision to split Collins’ last novel into two films was a controversial one which hasn’t paid off. The pacing of the film is appalling and some of the worst I’ve seen. You can fill a 2 hour runtime with as much beautiful scenery as you like, but if there isn’t enough action to counterbalance it, you end up with something that feels a little hollow.
The story simply isn’t there and we spend the majority of the film watching Katniss recoil in shock at seeing Peeta in the Capitol and wandering around the different districts aimlessly, searching for more atrocities to become angry at.
Mercifully, there is one scene towards the climax which rivals Gareth Edward’s Godzilla for the most eerily quiet and exquisitely shot action sequence of the year – see if you can spot it.
Overall, Mockingjay: Part 1 is a decent film if not quite to the standard of last year’s Catching Fire. The decision to create two films has destroyed the series’ pacing and reeks of money grabbing.
However, stunning performances from all the actors, in particular Julianne Moore and Donald Sutherland ensure that fans of the series will be dying to see the next instalment in a year’s time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/11/22/too-slow-in-parts-mockingjay-part-1-review/
A year after the critically acclaimed Catching Fire, director Francis Lawrence returns with the first part of Suzanne Collins’ underwhelming finale – Mockingjay, but can it continue with the series’ success and improve on the lacklustre novel?
Partially is the short answer. Lawrence continues to provide a slick environment in which the film resides and commands the best from the actors, but severe pacing issues occasionally stop the movie dead in its tracks.
Mockingjay begins just hours after the end of the second film with Jennifer Lawrence becoming a completely deflated Katniss Everdeen when she realises that Peeta wasn’t rescued with her in the arena.
She is now hiding out in District 13, along with a host of familiar faces including Elizabeth Banks’ brilliant Effie Trinket who provides the majority of the film’s comedic moments – though these are few and far between this time around. The late Philip Seymour Hoffman also returns as Plutarch Heavensbee and completely commands the screen in every scene.
However, the standout performance doesn’t belong to one of the old favourites. Julianne Moore enters the series as President Alma Coin and is a complete joy, her warm yet steely persona is engaging and mesmerising and her character promises to be even more intriguing in the next instalment.
It’s also nice to see Liam Hemsworth take on a more central role as Gale, which leaves Josh Hutcherson’s whiny Peeta very much in the background.
The film centres around the creation of numerous propaganda videos, each designed to threaten the Capitol and President Snow, played by such a convincing Donald Sutherland you actually believe he is evil, made by the rebellion to show they are fighting back.
The lack of a games for a focus point could’ve had a huge impact on this film’s popularity, but Francis Lawrence gets around the lack of them with style and flair, blending truly horrific images of war with those of running water, forests and wild animals – all the while showing us how even in the darkest of times, there is beauty in this world.
Moreover, the special effects have once again been stepped up a gear. The onslaught of the Capitol’s bombers is realised beautifully and really drives home how brutal this film can be in parts. It is the first in the series where its 12A certification may have been slightly too lenient, with images of Snow’s increasing brutality proving a shock to the system.
Unfortunately, the decision to split Collins’ last novel into two films was a controversial one which hasn’t paid off. The pacing of the film is appalling and some of the worst I’ve seen. You can fill a 2 hour runtime with as much beautiful scenery as you like, but if there isn’t enough action to counterbalance it, you end up with something that feels a little hollow.
The story simply isn’t there and we spend the majority of the film watching Katniss recoil in shock at seeing Peeta in the Capitol and wandering around the different districts aimlessly, searching for more atrocities to become angry at.
Mercifully, there is one scene towards the climax which rivals Gareth Edward’s Godzilla for the most eerily quiet and exquisitely shot action sequence of the year – see if you can spot it.
Overall, Mockingjay: Part 1 is a decent film if not quite to the standard of last year’s Catching Fire. The decision to create two films has destroyed the series’ pacing and reeks of money grabbing.
However, stunning performances from all the actors, in particular Julianne Moore and Donald Sutherland ensure that fans of the series will be dying to see the next instalment in a year’s time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/11/22/too-slow-in-parts-mockingjay-part-1-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the biggest challenges with an ongoing series is crafting a story that is on par or better than the prior offering and that the characters continue to grow so audiences do not get a rehash of what they have seen before.
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
Dana (24 KP) rated The Winner's Kiss in Books
Mar 23, 2018
So my rating for this is actually a 3.5 stars instead of a 4 stars, but I rounded up. Oh and there will be spoilers in this review, so you have been warned.
This was an okay ending for the series-it wasn't bad but it wasn't bad either.
The characters got whiny and I only understood some of their motivations for what they did. Kestrel and Arin were very angsty throughout the series, and they did not disappoint in this book either.
I understand Kestrel had to forget herself in the work camp to be able to survive the camp and to become a better person afterwards, but to me, it was kinda pointless. Yes, she gets to start a new relationship with Arin and everyone else, but it seemed like a cover for the story to be able to go on without as many hitches. She was still able to retain some of herself, but most of her memories were gone? That just didn't make much sense to me. With that, how would she remember how to play the games so well if her mind was gone? I'm pretty sure that war strategy doesn't stay with you longer than your core memories, but hey, that's just my opinion. Another convenient thing that came with Kestrel's memory loss was that some of the previous novels' subplots were not touched on because she couldn't remember them. Again, not really my favorite thing in the world when it comes to writing.
Because of these couple of things, I did see quite a few plot holes that were too big for me not to notice.
I liked Arin the tiger. I want a tiger friend because that would be awesome.
I also really liked the clever way Kestrel took down the emperor. That was a brilliant move and I was actually really worried for her when I was reading that part of the book.
Overall, it was paced quite well, it was a very quick read, but there were plot and characterization problems that kept me from absolutely loving it. I am glad that I finished reading this series and that I waited to be able to binge read them all in one summer, but it was also kind of a let down from what I had expected.
If you like books with interesting concepts, lands, and politics, definitely pick this series up because, like I said before, I didn't dislike it! Not by a long shot!
This was an okay ending for the series-it wasn't bad but it wasn't bad either.
The characters got whiny and I only understood some of their motivations for what they did. Kestrel and Arin were very angsty throughout the series, and they did not disappoint in this book either.
I understand Kestrel had to forget herself in the work camp to be able to survive the camp and to become a better person afterwards, but to me, it was kinda pointless. Yes, she gets to start a new relationship with Arin and everyone else, but it seemed like a cover for the story to be able to go on without as many hitches. She was still able to retain some of herself, but most of her memories were gone? That just didn't make much sense to me. With that, how would she remember how to play the games so well if her mind was gone? I'm pretty sure that war strategy doesn't stay with you longer than your core memories, but hey, that's just my opinion. Another convenient thing that came with Kestrel's memory loss was that some of the previous novels' subplots were not touched on because she couldn't remember them. Again, not really my favorite thing in the world when it comes to writing.
Because of these couple of things, I did see quite a few plot holes that were too big for me not to notice.
I liked Arin the tiger. I want a tiger friend because that would be awesome.
I also really liked the clever way Kestrel took down the emperor. That was a brilliant move and I was actually really worried for her when I was reading that part of the book.
Overall, it was paced quite well, it was a very quick read, but there were plot and characterization problems that kept me from absolutely loving it. I am glad that I finished reading this series and that I waited to be able to binge read them all in one summer, but it was also kind of a let down from what I had expected.
If you like books with interesting concepts, lands, and politics, definitely pick this series up because, like I said before, I didn't dislike it! Not by a long shot!
Nicole Hadley (380 KP) rated The Banana-Leaf Ball: How Play Can Change the World in Books
Jun 18, 2018
The Banana-Leaf Ball by Katie Smith Milway is book is based on a real refuge camp in East Africa and a boy whose life got better when the sport of soccer was introduced to the children. The coaches from the organization Right to Play taught kids how to get along by playing together.
The main character, Deo Rukundo, an East African boy is forced to flee his home because of a war in his country. He ends up separated from his family and keeps running deep into the forest for safety. After many weeks where he lives on dew drops, wild fruits and leaves he finds his way to a refugee camp in Northwest Tanzania. Frightened, homesick and alone, he prays for the well-being of the rest of his family.
With little resources in the refugee camp bullies emerge and vandalize those living there. They steal and intimidate everyone and they especially target Deo. Remy the gang leader is menacing and poses threats to all those he encounters.
One day a coach arrives and gathers up the children to play a game of soccer. He hesitates about joining in the game but his excitement overcomes him and he touts his excellent soccer skills in front of the coach. Very impressed, the coach makes Deo captain of the "shirts" team. As the game progresses brand new feelings of comradery and acceptance emerge from the players as they work together as a team to score that winning goal. The kids start to laugh, forget their worries and relax. They area transformed into" kids" once again.
In the following days the kids gather at Deo's house and he teaches them his soccer moves and how to make a ball out of dried banana leaves. Most importantly they open up to each other about their feelings and share their experiences both before refugee camp and the life they are living now.
This book is based upon a true story. It is heartwarming and inspiring. It points out that truly frightening, seemingly hopeless situations can indeed be turned around into something positive and bearable for those caught in such tragic circumstances.
The book is a perfect catalyst to get kids talking about others less fortunate and the social justice issues that surround refugees all over the world. It allows them to discuss the handling of bullies and the value of sports, teamwork, sharing with each other and acceptance.
I received this ARC book from Kids Can press via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
The main character, Deo Rukundo, an East African boy is forced to flee his home because of a war in his country. He ends up separated from his family and keeps running deep into the forest for safety. After many weeks where he lives on dew drops, wild fruits and leaves he finds his way to a refugee camp in Northwest Tanzania. Frightened, homesick and alone, he prays for the well-being of the rest of his family.
With little resources in the refugee camp bullies emerge and vandalize those living there. They steal and intimidate everyone and they especially target Deo. Remy the gang leader is menacing and poses threats to all those he encounters.
One day a coach arrives and gathers up the children to play a game of soccer. He hesitates about joining in the game but his excitement overcomes him and he touts his excellent soccer skills in front of the coach. Very impressed, the coach makes Deo captain of the "shirts" team. As the game progresses brand new feelings of comradery and acceptance emerge from the players as they work together as a team to score that winning goal. The kids start to laugh, forget their worries and relax. They area transformed into" kids" once again.
In the following days the kids gather at Deo's house and he teaches them his soccer moves and how to make a ball out of dried banana leaves. Most importantly they open up to each other about their feelings and share their experiences both before refugee camp and the life they are living now.
This book is based upon a true story. It is heartwarming and inspiring. It points out that truly frightening, seemingly hopeless situations can indeed be turned around into something positive and bearable for those caught in such tragic circumstances.
The book is a perfect catalyst to get kids talking about others less fortunate and the social justice issues that surround refugees all over the world. It allows them to discuss the handling of bullies and the value of sports, teamwork, sharing with each other and acceptance.
I received this ARC book from Kids Can press via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.