Search
Search results
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I first read Dracula as part of a film and fiction course at University: read the book; watch the film. It is, of course, the most famous of all vampire stories.
Unlike the movie version, the story is told from the point of view of the various secondary characters (who are all writing in their diaries or memoirs): Dracula, himself, is never at the forefront. Rather, he is an ominous shadowy presence in the background throughout. This is actually quite effective: by disassociating the reader from the villain, Stoker manages to both convey the deadly mysteriousness of the Count, and side-steps the danger of the reader sympathizing too much with Dracula, while that character is also able to be abroad during the day-time; just not with the powers he has at night.
Finally, and unlike the film version which bears the same name, in the book Dracula is not given the same back-story: Mina, for instance, is never described as being his long-lost love! In this sense, the film is much more of a Gothic love-story than the original source material!
Unlike the movie version, the story is told from the point of view of the various secondary characters (who are all writing in their diaries or memoirs): Dracula, himself, is never at the forefront. Rather, he is an ominous shadowy presence in the background throughout. This is actually quite effective: by disassociating the reader from the villain, Stoker manages to both convey the deadly mysteriousness of the Count, and side-steps the danger of the reader sympathizing too much with Dracula, while that character is also able to be abroad during the day-time; just not with the powers he has at night.
Finally, and unlike the film version which bears the same name, in the book Dracula is not given the same back-story: Mina, for instance, is never described as being his long-lost love! In this sense, the film is much more of a Gothic love-story than the original source material!
The Name Above The Title
Book
Although Frank Capra (1897-1991) is best known as the director of It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds...
Everything Sucks - Season 1
7.5
Rate It
TV Season
It's the 1990s in Boring, Ore., and groups of outcasts in Boring High School's AV and drama clubs...
Comedy drama everything sucks Netflix 90s
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
RavenclawPrincess913 (253 KP) rated Divergent in Books
May 26, 2019
Title: Divergent
Author: Veronica Roth
Read Dates: May 21 - May 25th
Why did I choose to read this book?
I chose to read this book because I saw the movie back in Highschool and loved it and made me want to read the book as well after I learned it was orginally a book.
Did I like it? I loved the book.
Five things I liked about this book:
1. I love the dystopian part of the story and how they try to improve the society by dividing into fractions of like minded people.
2. I love the story between Tris and Four. I love how it's not like normal people and not too gushy. I loved how they helped each other through each others fears.
3. I love how Tris chose the fraction best for her rather than what others wanted her to choose. But, I also love how she'll sacrifice herself for the people she loves.
4. I love how her mom ended up being divergent as well.
5. I love how she can't be controlled and a robot like the others.
One character I disliked: Peter
Do I recommend this book? Yes
What is one similar book I think you'd like if you also love this book? Hunger Games
Questions for you:
1. Have you read this book and what similar book would you recommend to it?
2. What Fraction do you think you'd belong to?
3. Do you like the way I did review or the way I usually do reviews better?
Author: Veronica Roth
Read Dates: May 21 - May 25th
Why did I choose to read this book?
I chose to read this book because I saw the movie back in Highschool and loved it and made me want to read the book as well after I learned it was orginally a book.
Did I like it? I loved the book.
Five things I liked about this book:
1. I love the dystopian part of the story and how they try to improve the society by dividing into fractions of like minded people.
2. I love the story between Tris and Four. I love how it's not like normal people and not too gushy. I loved how they helped each other through each others fears.
3. I love how Tris chose the fraction best for her rather than what others wanted her to choose. But, I also love how she'll sacrifice herself for the people she loves.
4. I love how her mom ended up being divergent as well.
5. I love how she can't be controlled and a robot like the others.
One character I disliked: Peter
Do I recommend this book? Yes
What is one similar book I think you'd like if you also love this book? Hunger Games
Questions for you:
1. Have you read this book and what similar book would you recommend to it?
2. What Fraction do you think you'd belong to?
3. Do you like the way I did review or the way I usually do reviews better?
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2466 KP) rated French Quarter Fright Night in Books
Sep 4, 2024
Frightful Time with the New Neighbor
Ricki James-Diaz is leading the efforts of the Bon Vee staff to put on the best haunted house New Orleans has seen this Halloween. Those efforts are being hampered by their new next-door neighbor, who is constantly making complaints about them. Ricki is shocked when she learns who has bought the house – mega movie star Blaine Taggart, the best friend of her late husband. Ricki had hoped to never see Blaine again, but things get complicated when another dead body turns up on Bon Vee property. Can Ricki once again figure out what happened?
I’m so glad that a new publisher picked up this series. It was wonderful to visit Ricki and her friends again. I enjoyed getting to see some of the relationships grow in this book, even if Ricki’s relationship with the detective isn’t really realistic. I also enjoyed seeing Hollywood pop up here. The mystery itself is strong with some nice surprises before we reach the logical ending. It was fun to visit the city during Halloween. As always, I laughed several times while reading. We also get some recipes inspired by vintage cookbooks at the end of the book, including several appropriate for the season. Fans will be just as happy as I was that Ricki and her friends are back.
I’m so glad that a new publisher picked up this series. It was wonderful to visit Ricki and her friends again. I enjoyed getting to see some of the relationships grow in this book, even if Ricki’s relationship with the detective isn’t really realistic. I also enjoyed seeing Hollywood pop up here. The mystery itself is strong with some nice surprises before we reach the logical ending. It was fun to visit the city during Halloween. As always, I laughed several times while reading. We also get some recipes inspired by vintage cookbooks at the end of the book, including several appropriate for the season. Fans will be just as happy as I was that Ricki and her friends are back.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
Janeeny (200 KP) rated Ever Alice in Books
May 9, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Unfortunately I was quite disappointed with this book. Mostly because it had potential, but just fell really short of the mark.
Alice is now 15 years old and after years of telling people about her adventures in Wonderland her parents are starting to question her sanity and take her to see a specialised doctor at an Asylum in Switzerland. Sadly things are not quite what they seem at the asylum, but just when things appear to be at their worst for Alice a familiar white rabbit helps her escape the asylum and she finds herself back in Wonderland. What follows is actually quite an intricate tale of suspicion and treachery, reality and fantasy. I’m just not sure it works as an ‘Alice in wonderland’ tale.
I was impressed at first as the author really did seem to capture the essence of the silliness of wonderland, with some scenes that wouldn’t be out of place in a Monty Python sketch or a Mel Brooks movie, but after a while it began to feel like the author was trying a bit too hard and it started to become a slightly repetitive and tedious.
The Character development didn’t really work for me either, especially The Queen of Hearts. For me she was a bit two-dimensional, and although the author tries to give her a bit of a back story it just doesn’t adhere to the character.
Some aspects of the language also grated on me. For instance, when parents are being referred to as Mum and Papa, it doesn’t sit well with me. It’s either going to be mum and dad or mama and papa. I know that is probably just a personal peeve of mine, but every time I came across that phrasing it just halted the story for me. Oh and don’t get me started on the Pop culture references! An actress named Marilyn Montague, who sounds very similar to another well know Marilyn, and a boyband called ‘Mice to men’. They may have been put in for humour, but they just didn’t seem to flow with the story.
As I said, in essence it was a good story, if a little predictable at the end, I just feel that using it as a ‘re-imagining’ of Alice left it with some expectations that it just couldn’t live up to.
Alice is now 15 years old and after years of telling people about her adventures in Wonderland her parents are starting to question her sanity and take her to see a specialised doctor at an Asylum in Switzerland. Sadly things are not quite what they seem at the asylum, but just when things appear to be at their worst for Alice a familiar white rabbit helps her escape the asylum and she finds herself back in Wonderland. What follows is actually quite an intricate tale of suspicion and treachery, reality and fantasy. I’m just not sure it works as an ‘Alice in wonderland’ tale.
I was impressed at first as the author really did seem to capture the essence of the silliness of wonderland, with some scenes that wouldn’t be out of place in a Monty Python sketch or a Mel Brooks movie, but after a while it began to feel like the author was trying a bit too hard and it started to become a slightly repetitive and tedious.
The Character development didn’t really work for me either, especially The Queen of Hearts. For me she was a bit two-dimensional, and although the author tries to give her a bit of a back story it just doesn’t adhere to the character.
Some aspects of the language also grated on me. For instance, when parents are being referred to as Mum and Papa, it doesn’t sit well with me. It’s either going to be mum and dad or mama and papa. I know that is probably just a personal peeve of mine, but every time I came across that phrasing it just halted the story for me. Oh and don’t get me started on the Pop culture references! An actress named Marilyn Montague, who sounds very similar to another well know Marilyn, and a boyband called ‘Mice to men’. They may have been put in for humour, but they just didn’t seem to flow with the story.
As I said, in essence it was a good story, if a little predictable at the end, I just feel that using it as a ‘re-imagining’ of Alice left it with some expectations that it just couldn’t live up to.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Intern (2015) in Movies
Jun 6, 2018
In a word...charming
Like most of you, I did not make it to the movie theaters in September, 2015 to catch the Nancy Meyers "fish-out-of-water" comedy THE INTERN about a 70-ish man (Robert DeNiro) who goes to work at an Internet Start-up company headed by a a driven Millennial (Anne Hathaway). It seemed that this film was just going to be another Robert DeNiro phone-it-in "paycheck" comedy and not worth our time.
Boy, was I wrong.
In a word, I would call this film...charming. Hathaway is charming, the other workers and Interns at the start-up are charming and DeNiro (believe it or not) is the most charming of all.
Starring as Ben - a widower who is just withering away with inactivity and boredom who decides to go back to work - DeNiro shows he "still has it". His Ben is a strong character, as nuanced as one can be in this type of film and...yes...EXTREMELY charming. DeNiro most definitely is NOT phoning this one in - he gives it a very good effort (maybe not A+, but...) and it shows. He is on screen for almost every scene and holds our attention throughout.
Proving to be a worthy partner in this film is Anne Hathaway's driven Internet sensation, Jules. She spars with DeNiro throughout and the two make a fun pairing.
Also joining in on the fun is Rene Russo as a masseuse (and love interest for DeNiro and Andrew Rannels as Jules' ass't. But it is the trio of Adam Devine, Zack Pearlman and Jason Orley that almost steals this film as 3 knuckleheads that work with - and are mentored by - DeNiro's Yoda-like Intern. I almost would have preferred to see a film about these 4.
Nothing in this film is revolutionary or new and Director/Writer Meyers keeps it that way. It's like pulling on an old, comfortable sweater or a really well worn-in pair of shoes. It won't win any awards, but it is fun..and, yes...charming just the same.
THE INTERN is now streaming on NETFLIX and AMAZON PRIME, if you are looking for a...I'll say it one more time...charming...way to spend an evening - look no further than here.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Boy, was I wrong.
In a word, I would call this film...charming. Hathaway is charming, the other workers and Interns at the start-up are charming and DeNiro (believe it or not) is the most charming of all.
Starring as Ben - a widower who is just withering away with inactivity and boredom who decides to go back to work - DeNiro shows he "still has it". His Ben is a strong character, as nuanced as one can be in this type of film and...yes...EXTREMELY charming. DeNiro most definitely is NOT phoning this one in - he gives it a very good effort (maybe not A+, but...) and it shows. He is on screen for almost every scene and holds our attention throughout.
Proving to be a worthy partner in this film is Anne Hathaway's driven Internet sensation, Jules. She spars with DeNiro throughout and the two make a fun pairing.
Also joining in on the fun is Rene Russo as a masseuse (and love interest for DeNiro and Andrew Rannels as Jules' ass't. But it is the trio of Adam Devine, Zack Pearlman and Jason Orley that almost steals this film as 3 knuckleheads that work with - and are mentored by - DeNiro's Yoda-like Intern. I almost would have preferred to see a film about these 4.
Nothing in this film is revolutionary or new and Director/Writer Meyers keeps it that way. It's like pulling on an old, comfortable sweater or a really well worn-in pair of shoes. It won't win any awards, but it is fun..and, yes...charming just the same.
THE INTERN is now streaming on NETFLIX and AMAZON PRIME, if you are looking for a...I'll say it one more time...charming...way to spend an evening - look no further than here.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)