Search
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Lucid in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Xpresso Book Tours in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<i>Lucid</i> is really weird it's <b>not exactly a book with contents that I usually come across.</b> The last time I actually read a book that dealt with dreams was <i><a title="The Vault of Dreamers by Caragh M. O'Brien" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-the-vault-of-dreamers-by-caragh-m-obrien/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Vault of Dreamers</a></i>. <i>Lucid</i> kind of... <b>throws in dreams and nightmares together</b> when Lori Blaine's psychologist encourages her to finally go through a door reoccurring in her dreams for years. When Lori does, she is plunged into another world entirely where danger lurks around every corner.
<b>Bonansinga writes in a different style than what you might be used to.</b> As I read <i>Lucid</i>, <b>I felt like I was watching an episode of a TV series, or just merely an actress reading a script.</b> While Lori is our main character most of the time, <b>the author shifts outside of the character's thoughts every so often</b> and focuses on the dialogue and actions of the people around her. There's are a few moments where it's <b>almost as though there's a narrator observing everything going on but accidentally slips up and quickly tries to fix everything by repositioning the camera. Meanwhile, the characters, or "actors," pretend not to notice.</b>
<blockquote style="text-align: left;">They swerved around the body, which lay in a heap near the shouldergiving it a wide berthand then roared off into the night.
They never saw the body behind them casually sit up, rise to its feet, and walk away.
I promise Ill tell you everything, Lori was saying, searching through the glove box, as the damaged Geo chugged down a hill.</blockquote>
I've also <b>never seen so many caps in a book before.</b> I don't mean the first letter in every sentence, I mean the I'M YELLING AT YOU THOUGH INTERMASPACE kind. (Or <a title="Daughter of Deep Silence by Carrie Ryan" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-daughter-of-deep-silence-by-carrie-ryan/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">my brain is raging at a book.</a> It's not necessarily one I didn't finish.)
<i>Lucid</i> is very <b>action-packed and vivid, but I don't really feel like this is a stand alone.</b> There's a pretty solid ending, but there may be a subtle loose end or two (I'll have to mull it over in my brain). <b>The dream world, however...</b>
I'm still very confused. I know there are five stages of sleep: brain activity slows down in the first, brain activity is everywhere in the second as the body transitions into the third stage, where brain activity is low. The fourth stage is similar to the third stage as the body prepares for the fifth stage, which is known as REM, or rapid eye movement, and dreams come alive.
I totally summarized that part. I probably came across this on a boring day and didn't remember anything but rapid eye movement is where dreams occur. REM is also a unit of measurement measuring the amount of radiation absorbed by human tissue. *drum rolls* I promise I'm not showing off.
Anyhoo, back to this whole dream world thing Bonansinga built <i>Lucid</i> on. According to the book, <b>there are three dimensions.</b> There's <b>WAKEworld</b>, which I assume is when all of us are awake and slouching in office/desk chairs (or curled up with a good book); <b>REMspace</b>, which I assume is the dream world and where you dream; and then there's <b>LIMBOspace/LIMBOworld</b>, which, knowing the word limbo, it's the middle world between dreams and wakefulness.
<b>I get the gist. But I don't <i>understand</i> how this whole LIMBOspace/LIMBOworld works.</b> I mean, <b>is it connected to that in-between where you're not living or dead,</b> because it's connected to comatose states? <b>What happens if Lori actually "ran out of time?"</b> She'll be a vegetable, most likely, but <b>if she runs out of time... is she a vegetable forever until her body is just a pile of bones and dust somewhere? But then what happens when you <i>are</i> a pile of bones and dust somewhere? Do you continue existing in this LIMBOspace, or do you just disappear?</b>
I could be over thinking this and taking it a curious step further than what is actually necessary (I would still wonder about that connection to comatose states though). <b><i>Lucid</i> has mind-boggling and creepy moments throughout the book, but it's really just similar to someone trying to stop demons entering the real world. Bonansinga just takes it from a dream level rather than an inferno one.</b> Points given for a unique take on an overused plot.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lucid-by-jay-bonansinga/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<i>Lucid</i> is really weird it's <b>not exactly a book with contents that I usually come across.</b> The last time I actually read a book that dealt with dreams was <i><a title="The Vault of Dreamers by Caragh M. O'Brien" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-the-vault-of-dreamers-by-caragh-m-obrien/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Vault of Dreamers</a></i>. <i>Lucid</i> kind of... <b>throws in dreams and nightmares together</b> when Lori Blaine's psychologist encourages her to finally go through a door reoccurring in her dreams for years. When Lori does, she is plunged into another world entirely where danger lurks around every corner.
<b>Bonansinga writes in a different style than what you might be used to.</b> As I read <i>Lucid</i>, <b>I felt like I was watching an episode of a TV series, or just merely an actress reading a script.</b> While Lori is our main character most of the time, <b>the author shifts outside of the character's thoughts every so often</b> and focuses on the dialogue and actions of the people around her. There's are a few moments where it's <b>almost as though there's a narrator observing everything going on but accidentally slips up and quickly tries to fix everything by repositioning the camera. Meanwhile, the characters, or "actors," pretend not to notice.</b>
<blockquote style="text-align: left;">They swerved around the body, which lay in a heap near the shouldergiving it a wide berthand then roared off into the night.
They never saw the body behind them casually sit up, rise to its feet, and walk away.
I promise Ill tell you everything, Lori was saying, searching through the glove box, as the damaged Geo chugged down a hill.</blockquote>
I've also <b>never seen so many caps in a book before.</b> I don't mean the first letter in every sentence, I mean the I'M YELLING AT YOU THOUGH INTERMASPACE kind. (Or <a title="Daughter of Deep Silence by Carrie Ryan" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-daughter-of-deep-silence-by-carrie-ryan/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">my brain is raging at a book.</a> It's not necessarily one I didn't finish.)
<i>Lucid</i> is very <b>action-packed and vivid, but I don't really feel like this is a stand alone.</b> There's a pretty solid ending, but there may be a subtle loose end or two (I'll have to mull it over in my brain). <b>The dream world, however...</b>
I'm still very confused. I know there are five stages of sleep: brain activity slows down in the first, brain activity is everywhere in the second as the body transitions into the third stage, where brain activity is low. The fourth stage is similar to the third stage as the body prepares for the fifth stage, which is known as REM, or rapid eye movement, and dreams come alive.
I totally summarized that part. I probably came across this on a boring day and didn't remember anything but rapid eye movement is where dreams occur. REM is also a unit of measurement measuring the amount of radiation absorbed by human tissue. *drum rolls* I promise I'm not showing off.
Anyhoo, back to this whole dream world thing Bonansinga built <i>Lucid</i> on. According to the book, <b>there are three dimensions.</b> There's <b>WAKEworld</b>, which I assume is when all of us are awake and slouching in office/desk chairs (or curled up with a good book); <b>REMspace</b>, which I assume is the dream world and where you dream; and then there's <b>LIMBOspace/LIMBOworld</b>, which, knowing the word limbo, it's the middle world between dreams and wakefulness.
<b>I get the gist. But I don't <i>understand</i> how this whole LIMBOspace/LIMBOworld works.</b> I mean, <b>is it connected to that in-between where you're not living or dead,</b> because it's connected to comatose states? <b>What happens if Lori actually "ran out of time?"</b> She'll be a vegetable, most likely, but <b>if she runs out of time... is she a vegetable forever until her body is just a pile of bones and dust somewhere? But then what happens when you <i>are</i> a pile of bones and dust somewhere? Do you continue existing in this LIMBOspace, or do you just disappear?</b>
I could be over thinking this and taking it a curious step further than what is actually necessary (I would still wonder about that connection to comatose states though). <b><i>Lucid</i> has mind-boggling and creepy moments throughout the book, but it's really just similar to someone trying to stop demons entering the real world. Bonansinga just takes it from a dream level rather than an inferno one.</b> Points given for a unique take on an overused plot.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lucid-by-jay-bonansinga/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Fashion Makeup Salon Games 3D: Celebrity Makeover and Beauty Studio Game
Beauty, Games and Lifestyle
7.0
Rate It
App
***Are you tired of playing old and boring beauty salon makeover girl games that don’t offer the...
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated A Little Princess in Books
Nov 7, 2019
A little Princess was published in full by Charles Scribner's sons in September of 1905 after being a serialisation in St. Nicholas Magazine in 1887 and being a novella in 1888. The book was named one of the Teachers top books for children in 2007 and in 2012 was ranked 56th in the School Library Journal survey. The story follows Sara Crewe a wealthy heiress being sent off to boarding school in England. Despite being wealthy Sara isn't snobbish and rude but polite, clever and generous befriending several other students and the scullery maid Becky. Sara goes from privilege to a pauper after her fathers scheme with is friend over a diamond mine supposedly fails. After spending a few years working hard at the school she once attended Sara is found by her fathers friend and returned to privilege after finding out the diamond mines actually worked.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Seven Psychopaths (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Unfamiliar with writer and director Martin McDonagh’s previous gangster film In Burges, I was not exactly sure what I was getting into when watching Seven Psychopaths. I had seen a few trailers and was looking forward to what looked like a quirky new movie that I hoped delivered at least a few solid one-liners but was not expecting much more. Well, I am delighted to say that McDonagh delivers a fantastic self-referential crime caper that is one part Pulp Fiction and one part a meta episode of NBC’s TV show Community.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Alienated: Grounded At Groom Lake in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-31.png"/>;
Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake by Jeff Norton was the perfect middle grade quarantine book I was waiting for! Also - during the quarantine, Jeff is reading a chapter a day on his YouTube Channel, so please do check it out. His reading is wonderful!
From the first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I was going to like this book.
Fourteen-year-old Sherman is used to moving schools. But he's never been to a school like Groom Lake High, the high school for aliens.
It's a very alien environment for him, and he has to fit in. He quickly makes friends with a gang of galactic misfits. When the school bully NED endangers planet Earth, Sherman and his friends have to do anything they can to stop him!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
The thing I loved most about Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake was the amazing word play and inside jokes. It is very well thought and written and I really enjoyed it! There were so many puns and witty jokes that a children might initially miss, but will definitely make an adult chuckle.
<b><i>"It suddenly struck me that Facebook might be one of the alien inventions we were all using. I had seen its inventor on TV once and he definitely looked more alien than human."</i></b>
We read the book from Sherman's point of view.
And through him, we find out everything. His thoughts, his choices, his fears and his dreams. Not only do we get to know him, but we also get to watch his character grow as we move throughout the book.
<b><i>"Sherman, when you get older, you'll come to appreciate that life is basically a series of disappointments."</i></b>
Even though alien, this high school puts Sherman through all the troubles a normal school does: making friends, being bullied and having a crush. But Sherman also gets to fly rockets and has a chance to save the world!
Sherman's sister and his group of friends are awesome! They are funny and smart. I loved Octo, especially for his bravery and selflessness. I also loved the fact that the female characters were presented as strong and powerful individuals. It was a tiny touch, but quite meaningful, and it shouldn't go unnoticed.
<b><i>"Now don't be fooled. Jess might look like a malnourished goth queen, but she punches like a heavyweight."</i></b>
I also liked NED as a character.
<b><i>"I'd call him a bully, but that's giving bullies a bad name."</i></b>
He was quite a big bully - that is true. However, being evil is the only think he learned from his parents while growing up. The lesson we can learn is that sometimes we do bad things because we don't know any different. But what we do once we are given a second chance is what really matters!
I absolutely loved this book and I recommend it not only to middle-graders, but to people of all ages. It's a gem and it deserves to be n every child's library.
I received a copy of this book through a giveaway on Toppsta. All opinions are my own and completely unbiased.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-31.png"/>;
Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake by Jeff Norton was the perfect middle grade quarantine book I was waiting for! Also - during the quarantine, Jeff is reading a chapter a day on his YouTube Channel, so please do check it out. His reading is wonderful!
From the first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I was going to like this book.
Fourteen-year-old Sherman is used to moving schools. But he's never been to a school like Groom Lake High, the high school for aliens.
It's a very alien environment for him, and he has to fit in. He quickly makes friends with a gang of galactic misfits. When the school bully NED endangers planet Earth, Sherman and his friends have to do anything they can to stop him!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
The thing I loved most about Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake was the amazing word play and inside jokes. It is very well thought and written and I really enjoyed it! There were so many puns and witty jokes that a children might initially miss, but will definitely make an adult chuckle.
<b><i>"It suddenly struck me that Facebook might be one of the alien inventions we were all using. I had seen its inventor on TV once and he definitely looked more alien than human."</i></b>
We read the book from Sherman's point of view.
And through him, we find out everything. His thoughts, his choices, his fears and his dreams. Not only do we get to know him, but we also get to watch his character grow as we move throughout the book.
<b><i>"Sherman, when you get older, you'll come to appreciate that life is basically a series of disappointments."</i></b>
Even though alien, this high school puts Sherman through all the troubles a normal school does: making friends, being bullied and having a crush. But Sherman also gets to fly rockets and has a chance to save the world!
Sherman's sister and his group of friends are awesome! They are funny and smart. I loved Octo, especially for his bravery and selflessness. I also loved the fact that the female characters were presented as strong and powerful individuals. It was a tiny touch, but quite meaningful, and it shouldn't go unnoticed.
<b><i>"Now don't be fooled. Jess might look like a malnourished goth queen, but she punches like a heavyweight."</i></b>
I also liked NED as a character.
<b><i>"I'd call him a bully, but that's giving bullies a bad name."</i></b>
He was quite a big bully - that is true. However, being evil is the only think he learned from his parents while growing up. The lesson we can learn is that sometimes we do bad things because we don't know any different. But what we do once we are given a second chance is what really matters!
I absolutely loved this book and I recommend it not only to middle-graders, but to people of all ages. It's a gem and it deserves to be n every child's library.
I received a copy of this book through a giveaway on Toppsta. All opinions are my own and completely unbiased.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Young ensemble cast actually ensembling! (1 more)
Adam Driver on great form
After 42 years - does it leave with a bang or a whimper?
This review will be spoiler-free.
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
Gareth Michael Lewis (6 KP) rated Star Trek: Discovery in TV
Feb 26, 2018
Not the Star Trek we've come to know...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I did not have high hopes for this new series. I read every snippet of news about reshoots, cast changes, problems, etc. and I really could not see this new series living up to the ideals of all the Treks gone by. That said, I sat and watched it each week on Netflix and tried, really tried, to keep an open mind.
To begin, this series IS Star Trek. It has the ships. It has the Federation. It has the USS Enterprise (mentioned and seen). So why all the fuss?
Well, firstly, we have the Klingons. They look nothing like their predecessors in any other show. Alright, in The Original Series (TOS) they looked like fake-tanned, mustachioed humans and then they had forehead ridges in The Motion Picture and Next Generation (TNG) and we got over that quickly enough (they even explained why the ridgless Klingons existed in Star Trek Enterprise). Why the hostility towards the new Klingons in STD? Is it because they took an iconic villian and remade them for a more modern audience? Changing the appearance of ships, costumes and make-up along the way? Apparently so. But what series hasn't updated their villains as technology allows them to? Doctor Who's TARDIS has changed appearance more than once as have the Daleks. Didn't Battlestar Galactica face similar issues with the rebooted series? Of course. But we Trekkies can be an unforgiving bunch. Move past the updates to ships, uniforms and even aliens and judge the show on its own merits.
That leads us to the next bit.
Network executives seem to think that a more modern audience needs something edgier to keep them interested. So STD contains bloody violence, torture, f-words, naked Klingon sex (I did not need to see Klingon, armour-plated boobs) and is clearly made for an "adult" audience. My introduction to Star Trek was TNG, and I went back to TOS because I loved it. Then onto DS9 and Voyager. Even Enterprise, which played with established canon like a child in a sandpit, felt like something I'd let my kids watch. STD is like Game of Thrones in space, just with less incest. My kids will not be allowed to see this until they are much, much older.
The show itself is very pretty to look at, acted capably by almost everyone who has screentime and has characters I grew to genuinely like, but the writing was lazy. We were promised a Federation/Klingon war then somehow missed the whole thing by the final episode. The final episode itself seemed like an exercise in "how to end a season quickly and in the least satisfying way possible".
I wanted to give this series a higher score, I really did. I moved it from 7 to 6 and back to 7 again and again until I stuck with 6 because, although it has moments of brilliance, these moments are telegraphed so far in advance of happening you just can't bring yourself to be surprised by any of it. Almost every plot twist is so obvious that the writers seem to be waiting for a pat on the back at how cleverly they revealed the twist to you rather than trying to genuinely amaze you. It had such potential, it really did. The opening credits are beautiful, the music perfect. The ships are great (I play Star Trek Online so updated ships don't faze me that much). The crew are awesome, with dynamics that shift wonderfully and made me want to see more. But... alas.
If you want to watch a Star Trek series that pushes sci-fi, political and societal boundaries then go back and watch TOS, TNG, DS9 or even Voyager. If you want to watch a "Star Trek" series that does all of that for a modern audience... watch The Orville.
To begin, this series IS Star Trek. It has the ships. It has the Federation. It has the USS Enterprise (mentioned and seen). So why all the fuss?
Well, firstly, we have the Klingons. They look nothing like their predecessors in any other show. Alright, in The Original Series (TOS) they looked like fake-tanned, mustachioed humans and then they had forehead ridges in The Motion Picture and Next Generation (TNG) and we got over that quickly enough (they even explained why the ridgless Klingons existed in Star Trek Enterprise). Why the hostility towards the new Klingons in STD? Is it because they took an iconic villian and remade them for a more modern audience? Changing the appearance of ships, costumes and make-up along the way? Apparently so. But what series hasn't updated their villains as technology allows them to? Doctor Who's TARDIS has changed appearance more than once as have the Daleks. Didn't Battlestar Galactica face similar issues with the rebooted series? Of course. But we Trekkies can be an unforgiving bunch. Move past the updates to ships, uniforms and even aliens and judge the show on its own merits.
That leads us to the next bit.
Network executives seem to think that a more modern audience needs something edgier to keep them interested. So STD contains bloody violence, torture, f-words, naked Klingon sex (I did not need to see Klingon, armour-plated boobs) and is clearly made for an "adult" audience. My introduction to Star Trek was TNG, and I went back to TOS because I loved it. Then onto DS9 and Voyager. Even Enterprise, which played with established canon like a child in a sandpit, felt like something I'd let my kids watch. STD is like Game of Thrones in space, just with less incest. My kids will not be allowed to see this until they are much, much older.
The show itself is very pretty to look at, acted capably by almost everyone who has screentime and has characters I grew to genuinely like, but the writing was lazy. We were promised a Federation/Klingon war then somehow missed the whole thing by the final episode. The final episode itself seemed like an exercise in "how to end a season quickly and in the least satisfying way possible".
I wanted to give this series a higher score, I really did. I moved it from 7 to 6 and back to 7 again and again until I stuck with 6 because, although it has moments of brilliance, these moments are telegraphed so far in advance of happening you just can't bring yourself to be surprised by any of it. Almost every plot twist is so obvious that the writers seem to be waiting for a pat on the back at how cleverly they revealed the twist to you rather than trying to genuinely amaze you. It had such potential, it really did. The opening credits are beautiful, the music perfect. The ships are great (I play Star Trek Online so updated ships don't faze me that much). The crew are awesome, with dynamics that shift wonderfully and made me want to see more. But... alas.
If you want to watch a Star Trek series that pushes sci-fi, political and societal boundaries then go back and watch TOS, TNG, DS9 or even Voyager. If you want to watch a "Star Trek" series that does all of that for a modern audience... watch The Orville.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst in TV
Jun 27, 2018 (Updated Jun 27, 2018)
Mindblowing
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have been on a bit of a documentary kick lately and my most recent watch was the Jinx. I never watched this show back when it aired in 2015, or followed the story at the time, so I went into this show knowing very little about the tale it was telling. I'd say if you are in the same boat, then that is probably the best way to go into this doc. There are only six parts to the doc, so it can be binged over a few nights or in one day. Don't look up anything about it before watching and just go in blind, by the end your mind will be blown.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.