Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A plethora of clichés.
2017’s summer blockbusters fizzle to a halt with this formulaic action comedy. Ryan Reynolds (“Deadpool“) plays Michael Bryce: a cocksure “Triple A rated” bodyguard, always planning three steps ahead so that he can protect his clients without killing anyone in the process. With such arrogance, a fall is inevitable. On the other side of the legal scales is Darius Kincaid (Samuel L Jackson, “The Hateful Eight“), a contract killer who always gets his man. But the incarcerated Kincaid is offered a deal to release his equally incarcerated wife Sonia (Selma Hayek) in return for testifying against the fearsome Belarus president Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”), on trial for war crimes at The Hague. An Interpol team led by Bryce’s’s ex-squeeze Amelia Roussel (the striking Elodie Yung) now have to get Kincaid to Belgium unscathed with Dukhovich’s well-trained and well-armed thugs stopping at nothing to ensure he won’t be there to testify. Fate transpires that Bryce and Kincaid become an unlikely team in trying to bring Dukhovich to justice.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Good Day To Die Hard (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
To me, the original Die Hard (1988) was the birth of the modern action movie that we now take for granted. We have a seeming normal everyman in Bruce Willis, playing a likable but tough as nails NYPD cop John McClane, who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Yes, Story if his life.) The street smart hero uses whatever resources he could muster to become a thorn in the side of an intelligent and sophisticated villain, while dropping a few comedy one-liners along the way. This being the 5th installment of the Die Hard series the formula seems to be working, only not as well as past films in the series.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Arthur (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Arthur Bach is a spoiled, boyish, alcoholic, New York City playboy with amazing hair and heir to the family business and fortune. He and his faithful sidekick Bitterman travel far and wide to have fun and drink. Well, Arthur drinks, Bitterman drives. He is also very dependent on his nanny Hobson who has been with him since he was born and still takes care of him. One day his mother Vivienne decides she’s had it with his antics, embarrassing her and the family company, so she gives him an ultimatum: either he marries Susan Johnson or he will be cut-off and have to fend for himself on the mean streets of New York City.
Though he doesn’t love Susan, he eventually decides to go along with his mother’s wishes and propose to her. But during this time he also meets the enchanting Naomi, an unlicensed tour guide of Grand Central Terminal who has dreams of being a children’s author. As the wedding day draws nearer and nearer, Arthur and Naomi grow closer and closer. Then tragedy strikes. How this affects Arthur could change his entire life. Does he marry Susan and keep his wealth but gain the world’s scariest father-in-law? Does he choose the mean streets of New York City to be with Naomi? Or do he and Bitterman jump into the Batmobile and drive off into the sunset?
This remake of the 1981 movie Arthur honored the wonderful story that many of us know and love from the original film while still possessing its own unique flair. I believe Dudley Moore would have been very happy with Russell Brand’s excellent performance as Arthur Bach (if you disagree, hold a seance and prove me wrong). Helen Mirren does an amazing job as Hobson and she pretty much owns any scene she is in. Nick Nolte & Jennifer Garner were great as Burt (world’s scariest future father-in-law) and Susan Johnson (Arthur’s total-10-on-the-L.A.-scale) fiancee. Last but not least, I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of: Greta Gerwig as Naomi (Arthur’s love interest), Geraldine James as Vivienne Bach (Arthur’s Mom) and Luis Guzman as Bitterman his faithful sidekick and chauffeur (though I do wish Luis would have been given more screen time). The film definitely kept the audiences attention from start to finish but we were all laughing so much that I have to see it again to hear the jokes that I missed the first time.
If you were sober when you saw the original movie you probably remember the key parts of the story line but if not then this movie will seem like an entirely original movie to you.
Though he doesn’t love Susan, he eventually decides to go along with his mother’s wishes and propose to her. But during this time he also meets the enchanting Naomi, an unlicensed tour guide of Grand Central Terminal who has dreams of being a children’s author. As the wedding day draws nearer and nearer, Arthur and Naomi grow closer and closer. Then tragedy strikes. How this affects Arthur could change his entire life. Does he marry Susan and keep his wealth but gain the world’s scariest father-in-law? Does he choose the mean streets of New York City to be with Naomi? Or do he and Bitterman jump into the Batmobile and drive off into the sunset?
This remake of the 1981 movie Arthur honored the wonderful story that many of us know and love from the original film while still possessing its own unique flair. I believe Dudley Moore would have been very happy with Russell Brand’s excellent performance as Arthur Bach (if you disagree, hold a seance and prove me wrong). Helen Mirren does an amazing job as Hobson and she pretty much owns any scene she is in. Nick Nolte & Jennifer Garner were great as Burt (world’s scariest future father-in-law) and Susan Johnson (Arthur’s total-10-on-the-L.A.-scale) fiancee. Last but not least, I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of: Greta Gerwig as Naomi (Arthur’s love interest), Geraldine James as Vivienne Bach (Arthur’s Mom) and Luis Guzman as Bitterman his faithful sidekick and chauffeur (though I do wish Luis would have been given more screen time). The film definitely kept the audiences attention from start to finish but we were all laughing so much that I have to see it again to hear the jokes that I missed the first time.
If you were sober when you saw the original movie you probably remember the key parts of the story line but if not then this movie will seem like an entirely original movie to you.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Sunshine (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The sun is dying and the Icarus project is sent in to fix the problem. Robert Capa and the Icarus team go out into space in hopes of re-igniting the sun with a stellar bomb that's equal in mass to Manhattan island. It's been sixteen months since the team first left earth and they're about to enter the blackout zone...a bit earlier than expected. This means they won't be able to send or receive messages back home after they reach this zone. This is only the beginning of their problems as they realize that no matter how prepared they thought they were...things can and will go wrong in phenomenal ways.
I've got to say right off the bat that this is one of my favorite films to come out in recent years. I think it's an almost perfect film. The film had a science advisor and it shows as it's a very intelligent film. The Danny Boyle films I've seen have been good, but I think this one is my favorite thus far. It's another film that is beautifully shot. Every frame is just oozing with vibrant colors and Boyle's style bleeds through in every scene. Cillian Murphy is impressive, as always. He's another actor I feel deserves more credit than he's given as he impresses me more and more as his talent seems to shine that much brighter in each film he's involved with. Chris Evans was the guy who surprised me in this. It's not a role you'd expect to see him in after seeing him in films like Not Another Teen Movie and Fantastic Four. He's in top form though and he fits into this role in ease. This is also one of the few films that I really enjoy the soundtrack, as well. When a soundtrack enhances the movie experience instead of taking away from it, it only makes the film that much better. This is one of those soundtracks.
As great as the film is, it's greatest strength is its biggest flaw. They did have a science advisor and it helps make the film more believable, more intelligent, etc. The things that were changed to add suspense or for whatever reason other than to make the film more believable or as factual as possible make the film seem a little farfetched at times. It's really only a minor nitpick and it doesn't take away from how superb this movie really is.
Sunshine is a film any science fiction or horror fan should see. It's mostly a science fiction film, but the last half or so is pure horror. There's definitely an Event Horizon feel to this film. It's an interesting formula that pays off pretty well in the end. The film looks fantastic as every shot seems to jump off the screen in vibrant color. It's very well written and pretty believable(given the circumstances). The acting is top notch and it's a film I highly recommend to anyone I can.
I've got to say right off the bat that this is one of my favorite films to come out in recent years. I think it's an almost perfect film. The film had a science advisor and it shows as it's a very intelligent film. The Danny Boyle films I've seen have been good, but I think this one is my favorite thus far. It's another film that is beautifully shot. Every frame is just oozing with vibrant colors and Boyle's style bleeds through in every scene. Cillian Murphy is impressive, as always. He's another actor I feel deserves more credit than he's given as he impresses me more and more as his talent seems to shine that much brighter in each film he's involved with. Chris Evans was the guy who surprised me in this. It's not a role you'd expect to see him in after seeing him in films like Not Another Teen Movie and Fantastic Four. He's in top form though and he fits into this role in ease. This is also one of the few films that I really enjoy the soundtrack, as well. When a soundtrack enhances the movie experience instead of taking away from it, it only makes the film that much better. This is one of those soundtracks.
As great as the film is, it's greatest strength is its biggest flaw. They did have a science advisor and it helps make the film more believable, more intelligent, etc. The things that were changed to add suspense or for whatever reason other than to make the film more believable or as factual as possible make the film seem a little farfetched at times. It's really only a minor nitpick and it doesn't take away from how superb this movie really is.
Sunshine is a film any science fiction or horror fan should see. It's mostly a science fiction film, but the last half or so is pure horror. There's definitely an Event Horizon feel to this film. It's an interesting formula that pays off pretty well in the end. The film looks fantastic as every shot seems to jump off the screen in vibrant color. It's very well written and pretty believable(given the circumstances). The acting is top notch and it's a film I highly recommend to anyone I can.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Out of Death (2021) in Movies
Jul 30, 2021
I got my hands on a preview of this one. Modern Bruce Willis is always a slight concern, but I like to give them the benefit of the doubt.
In this peaceful mountain town, a quiet hike turns to terror as a photographer witnesses a brutal crime by the very people who are supposed to protect against them.
On the scale of messed up plots, Out of Death isn't actually that bad. Corrupt law enforcement caught in the act is a strong idea to use in a crime thriller. The setting also gave them a lot of opportunities even though it's a fairly simple forest/wooded setting. Though that setting suffers a little from TARDIS-esque qualities, is it big, is it small, how does time work in and around it? I found myself wondering about those random things, which may have been down to not feeling massively engaged with anything happening.
From the small collection of characters, Billie and Tom probably came out the best. Though no one quite got out unscathed. They did at least have a bond that played out well in a few scenes.
Beyond them, the rest of the cast don't do so well with the script. There are points where it tries to give characters something a little extra, but it ultimately came out a little on the creepy side. I'm thinking in particular about one scene where two characters try to have a human conversation and build a little backstory... it was bad, and made me cringe. I haven't felt that way about a film interaction in a very long time.
As much as I love Bruce Willis, he basically wanders through this one without much effort. The whole affair felt rather lethargic, and as with his other recent films, it's a phoned-in effort. Without him, I doubt anyone would have come across Out of Death, there's nothing that's a particular hook, and with such a generic air to it, I can't see anyone picking it out of a line-up of similar films.
Out of Death might not be the worst film I've ever seen, but there's lots of room for improvement. As it is, it doesn't hold your attention enough to make it massively enjoyable. At the very least you can enjoy the scenery.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/out-of-death-movie-review.html
In this peaceful mountain town, a quiet hike turns to terror as a photographer witnesses a brutal crime by the very people who are supposed to protect against them.
On the scale of messed up plots, Out of Death isn't actually that bad. Corrupt law enforcement caught in the act is a strong idea to use in a crime thriller. The setting also gave them a lot of opportunities even though it's a fairly simple forest/wooded setting. Though that setting suffers a little from TARDIS-esque qualities, is it big, is it small, how does time work in and around it? I found myself wondering about those random things, which may have been down to not feeling massively engaged with anything happening.
From the small collection of characters, Billie and Tom probably came out the best. Though no one quite got out unscathed. They did at least have a bond that played out well in a few scenes.
Beyond them, the rest of the cast don't do so well with the script. There are points where it tries to give characters something a little extra, but it ultimately came out a little on the creepy side. I'm thinking in particular about one scene where two characters try to have a human conversation and build a little backstory... it was bad, and made me cringe. I haven't felt that way about a film interaction in a very long time.
As much as I love Bruce Willis, he basically wanders through this one without much effort. The whole affair felt rather lethargic, and as with his other recent films, it's a phoned-in effort. Without him, I doubt anyone would have come across Out of Death, there's nothing that's a particular hook, and with such a generic air to it, I can't see anyone picking it out of a line-up of similar films.
Out of Death might not be the worst film I've ever seen, but there's lots of room for improvement. As it is, it doesn't hold your attention enough to make it massively enjoyable. At the very least you can enjoy the scenery.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/out-of-death-movie-review.html
Dana (24 KP) rated Close Range in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I enjoyed reading this, mainly from a craft perspective. I am not the biggest of fans of the Western stories, but the characters and their actions really came alive from her descriptions and I felt like I learned a lot.
While I didn't enjoy reading all of the stories, there were a few that were very interesting. As I said, the craft in all of the stories was very cool to be able to pick apart. I liked looking at the moods of each story as I read it. Each one had its own set tone that you should look out for when you read them. Even the smallest parts, like drawing out the settings, were all beautifully rendered.
I had never read "Brokeback Mountain" before and I hadn't seen the movie either, but I enjoyed the story when I read it. Even though she paints the two guys as very similar in the beginning of the story, the both end up having such different personalities at the end.
There was also a very short, two page story that was so beautifully vague. It was called "55 Miles to the Gas Pump." I loved how much characterization and care went into this very short story.
All in all, this was a cool collection of her short stories. I will most likely be picking up some of her other stories and giving them a read if not only to learn more from her craft.
While I didn't enjoy reading all of the stories, there were a few that were very interesting. As I said, the craft in all of the stories was very cool to be able to pick apart. I liked looking at the moods of each story as I read it. Each one had its own set tone that you should look out for when you read them. Even the smallest parts, like drawing out the settings, were all beautifully rendered.
I had never read "Brokeback Mountain" before and I hadn't seen the movie either, but I enjoyed the story when I read it. Even though she paints the two guys as very similar in the beginning of the story, the both end up having such different personalities at the end.
There was also a very short, two page story that was so beautifully vague. It was called "55 Miles to the Gas Pump." I loved how much characterization and care went into this very short story.
All in all, this was a cool collection of her short stories. I will most likely be picking up some of her other stories and giving them a read if not only to learn more from her craft.
Christine A. (965 KP) rated The Grace Year in Books
Jan 22, 2020
has been described as The Handmaid's Tale plus Lord of the Flies with The Hunger Games thrown in
I was provided with a complimentary copy of this book so I could give an honest review.
The Grace Year by Kim Liggett has been described as The Handmaid's Tale plus Lord of the Flies with The Hunger Games thrown in. Every book, movie, song, etc can make us think of other work. It does not mean it is not a good story. Actually, those are pretty good books to be compared to.
In The Grace Year, girls are banished for their sixteenth year. No one talks about what they call the grace year. All Tierney James knows is not everyone returns. Those who do are changed. Some are mentally changed. Others are physically damaged with missing limbs, scars, etc.
I enjoyed the storyline but it was a very slow burn. It took a while for me to get into the story. Once I did, I was hooked. It just took too long to capture my attention.
I read her earlier book, The Last Harvest, and found it was also a slow burn but worth reading. Knowing I will enjoy her books overall means I will keep reading until they grab me. With both books, once they did, I could not stop reading.
The Grace Year was a 2019 Goodreads Choice Award Nominee for Young Adult Fiction.
This 200-word review was published on Philomathinphila.com on 1/21/20.
The Grace Year by Kim Liggett has been described as The Handmaid's Tale plus Lord of the Flies with The Hunger Games thrown in. Every book, movie, song, etc can make us think of other work. It does not mean it is not a good story. Actually, those are pretty good books to be compared to.
In The Grace Year, girls are banished for their sixteenth year. No one talks about what they call the grace year. All Tierney James knows is not everyone returns. Those who do are changed. Some are mentally changed. Others are physically damaged with missing limbs, scars, etc.
I enjoyed the storyline but it was a very slow burn. It took a while for me to get into the story. Once I did, I was hooked. It just took too long to capture my attention.
I read her earlier book, The Last Harvest, and found it was also a slow burn but worth reading. Knowing I will enjoy her books overall means I will keep reading until they grab me. With both books, once they did, I could not stop reading.
The Grace Year was a 2019 Goodreads Choice Award Nominee for Young Adult Fiction.
This 200-word review was published on Philomathinphila.com on 1/21/20.
Dark Places: The Haunted House in Film
3.0
Rate It
Book
Horror films revel in taking viewers into shadowy places where evil resides, whether it is a house,...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Serial Mom (1994) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021
"𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳?"
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵!"
𝘔𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵: 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘐. Does anyone do the satirization of stuck-up suburban values as originally and/or as brutally entertaining as John Waters? Most other directors would have turned this into a threadbare lecture that refused to have any sort of fun. But here we have this beautiful concoction of B-movie theatrics, gore, pitch-perfect performances, jovial filth, rock-solid lampooning, and A1 comedy - so lovingly inspired by low-budget camp and slashers of the 60s-80s that it honestly could pass off as one in many respects. Kathleen Turner is a live wire - in one of the most religiously entertaining female performances of all time, it has a blast radius that would make a military warhead quake. This is the type of role that just demands your attention, perpetually switching between these polar opposite demeanors at the drop of a hat with expert-level talent and all game for the ensuing absurdity. Which on its own would have been enough to carry 93 minutes of fun but then the film is also super clever and uproarious without rest. Had an ear-to-ear smile on my face for most of the runtime and laughed so often that my mouth began to give out mid-laugh due to the muscles simply being too worn out from overwork. Quotable as fuck and every scene is memorable, a total killer.
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵!"
𝘔𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵: 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘐. Does anyone do the satirization of stuck-up suburban values as originally and/or as brutally entertaining as John Waters? Most other directors would have turned this into a threadbare lecture that refused to have any sort of fun. But here we have this beautiful concoction of B-movie theatrics, gore, pitch-perfect performances, jovial filth, rock-solid lampooning, and A1 comedy - so lovingly inspired by low-budget camp and slashers of the 60s-80s that it honestly could pass off as one in many respects. Kathleen Turner is a live wire - in one of the most religiously entertaining female performances of all time, it has a blast radius that would make a military warhead quake. This is the type of role that just demands your attention, perpetually switching between these polar opposite demeanors at the drop of a hat with expert-level talent and all game for the ensuing absurdity. Which on its own would have been enough to carry 93 minutes of fun but then the film is also super clever and uproarious without rest. Had an ear-to-ear smile on my face for most of the runtime and laughed so often that my mouth began to give out mid-laugh due to the muscles simply being too worn out from overwork. Quotable as fuck and every scene is memorable, a total killer.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 4, 2019 (Updated Oct 4, 2019)
Striking riff on some elements of the Batman mythology looks good but simultaneously feels like it's trying to do too much and struggling to justify its own existence. In an early 80s Gotham City, severely troubled clown/comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) is struggling to maintain his grip on reality, not to mention his own sanity. But a powerful force of nihilistic chaos is incubating within him...
A very strong performance by Joaquin Phoenix is the main reason to see this film, as he manages to be pitiable, frightening, and occasionally very funny. The sustained grimness and intensity of it is also surprising and impressive. That said, it does take rather a long time for the traditional Joker characterisation to begin to appear, and the question of whether this character can actually support a whole movie has clearly troubled the film-makers, too - hence, presumably, the attempts to make points about anti-capitalism, social unrest, and the mass media. These don't chime especially well with the period setting, which is presumably to facilitate the homages to King of Comedy, Taxi Driver, French Connection and Network which the film is filled with. One inevitably wonders what the point of the Joker is without Batman, unless it's simply to shock and provoke. This film does those things, but only up to a point and to no very obvious end. A good-looking, well-made, well-played film, but perhaps just the tiniest bit portentous.
A very strong performance by Joaquin Phoenix is the main reason to see this film, as he manages to be pitiable, frightening, and occasionally very funny. The sustained grimness and intensity of it is also surprising and impressive. That said, it does take rather a long time for the traditional Joker characterisation to begin to appear, and the question of whether this character can actually support a whole movie has clearly troubled the film-makers, too - hence, presumably, the attempts to make points about anti-capitalism, social unrest, and the mass media. These don't chime especially well with the period setting, which is presumably to facilitate the homages to King of Comedy, Taxi Driver, French Connection and Network which the film is filled with. One inevitably wonders what the point of the Joker is without Batman, unless it's simply to shock and provoke. This film does those things, but only up to a point and to no very obvious end. A good-looking, well-made, well-played film, but perhaps just the tiniest bit portentous.