Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Becky (2020) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
Mindless violence and Kevin James in a dramatic role? Colour me intrigued.
Becky's life hasn't been the smoothest ride, but when her dad brings her up to their cabin things start to look up... briefly. The excitement is short-lived when his girlfriend turns up with her son and they reveal they have some wonderful news to share. Unfortunately that's not the worst thing that's going to happen this trip.
I don't want to say that Becky deserved everything that happened to her in the film... but I wasn't mad when it did happen. It was an interesting film, I felt little to nothing for her as a character and I had a real desire for the bad guys to win (to some degree).
This desire built quite quickly in the beginning, I was having serious misgivings about choosing to buy it. The whole lead up was a challenge, Becky was obnoxious and nothing seemed to be happening. But thankfully it did pick up.
Becky has a relatively small cast and they're well selected. Kevin James is a pleasant surprise in this dramatic role. I love seeing people take on something out of character, and I thought his performance as Dominick was impressive. There may have been a couple of points that seemed a little out of place, but on the whole the part was well scripted and James' depiction was very convincing. There was a slightly odd dynamic between Dominick and his minions, I liked the variety of personalities though, and Robert Maillet was definitely my favourite as Apex.
Lulu Wilson as Becky kept causing me problems. As I mentioned above, I didn't really like her as a character... I'm not sure quite where I fell out with her along the way. The beginning felt insanely unrealistic with regards to her behaviour, and while I found her to be less frustrating when the action started there was still something missing. I wonder if that might be to do with age. She's a 13-year-old girl, just a nudge into the higher teens might have made it more engaging.
I had to tap some expert knowledge when it came to the cinematography (thank you, Clare), after some investigation I'm going to say that there are a lot of transitions that lay somewhere between a match cut and an invisible cut. At the beginning of the film it's used to show the comparison of Becky at school and the convicts in prison, and that worked, I liked it. But it happens more, and that novelty value wore off quickly and I was expecting more of it, which became distracting.
There's a lot of gore on-screen throughout, with the accompaniment of some slightly dubious effects on occasions. On the whole the gratuitous violence amused me for its sheer outrageousness. One scene will get you a bit (well, it did me), you'll know it when you see it. Was all this violence needed? Probably not. Was it entertaining in the action of it all? Yes... probably.
Even with my conflicted feelings at the beginning of the film, I did come out enjoying myself. There are hints of a spicy Home Alone at work, somewhere just shy of Better Watch Out.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/becky-movie-review.html
Becky's life hasn't been the smoothest ride, but when her dad brings her up to their cabin things start to look up... briefly. The excitement is short-lived when his girlfriend turns up with her son and they reveal they have some wonderful news to share. Unfortunately that's not the worst thing that's going to happen this trip.
I don't want to say that Becky deserved everything that happened to her in the film... but I wasn't mad when it did happen. It was an interesting film, I felt little to nothing for her as a character and I had a real desire for the bad guys to win (to some degree).
This desire built quite quickly in the beginning, I was having serious misgivings about choosing to buy it. The whole lead up was a challenge, Becky was obnoxious and nothing seemed to be happening. But thankfully it did pick up.
Becky has a relatively small cast and they're well selected. Kevin James is a pleasant surprise in this dramatic role. I love seeing people take on something out of character, and I thought his performance as Dominick was impressive. There may have been a couple of points that seemed a little out of place, but on the whole the part was well scripted and James' depiction was very convincing. There was a slightly odd dynamic between Dominick and his minions, I liked the variety of personalities though, and Robert Maillet was definitely my favourite as Apex.
Lulu Wilson as Becky kept causing me problems. As I mentioned above, I didn't really like her as a character... I'm not sure quite where I fell out with her along the way. The beginning felt insanely unrealistic with regards to her behaviour, and while I found her to be less frustrating when the action started there was still something missing. I wonder if that might be to do with age. She's a 13-year-old girl, just a nudge into the higher teens might have made it more engaging.
I had to tap some expert knowledge when it came to the cinematography (thank you, Clare), after some investigation I'm going to say that there are a lot of transitions that lay somewhere between a match cut and an invisible cut. At the beginning of the film it's used to show the comparison of Becky at school and the convicts in prison, and that worked, I liked it. But it happens more, and that novelty value wore off quickly and I was expecting more of it, which became distracting.
There's a lot of gore on-screen throughout, with the accompaniment of some slightly dubious effects on occasions. On the whole the gratuitous violence amused me for its sheer outrageousness. One scene will get you a bit (well, it did me), you'll know it when you see it. Was all this violence needed? Probably not. Was it entertaining in the action of it all? Yes... probably.
Even with my conflicted feelings at the beginning of the film, I did come out enjoying myself. There are hints of a spicy Home Alone at work, somewhere just shy of Better Watch Out.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/becky-movie-review.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) in Movies
Nov 13, 2020
Condemnable for the dubbing alone
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight is a Polish horror film about a group of technology dependent youths visiting an offline summer camp who are terrorised by a danger lurking in the woods.
The film follows a small group centred around Zosia (Julia Wieniawa), as they head out from the camp on a 3 day trek into the woods and encounter some very unfriendly locals. I’m afraid that from the very start, there’s nothing about this film that is particularly original. Pretty much every classic slasher horror is noticeably referenced here, from Friday the 13th to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and everything in between. It even drifts into sci-fi at one point. Some might say this is a homage to these films, but for me it was just a blatant copy. From the hillbilly bad guys in wooden cabins to the use of a machete, it all just felt so unoriginal. There was nothing at all in this that didn’t remind me of another, much better film. And that’s not even taking into account all of the clichéd horror movie tropes that are thrown in throughout - I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen dismembered deer/wildlife and phone batteries that are conveniently dying to name but a few, and Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight can’t seem to avoid these.
Despite this, there are some (very few) positives. The score is surprisingly atmospheric and dramatic, and works so well to build some much needed tension. The practical special effects, at least in the death scenes, are also good and there’s a pretty decent amount of gore. However this is pretty much the only good things I can say about this film. Whilst the death effects might be good, the creature/enemy effects are severely lacking and they look very cheap and second rate. It doesn’t help that their characters are rather silly and have no real purpose other than to kill. And even their murdering appears to be nonsensical and sporadic – for instance in one scene killing a character who’s outside yet completely ignoring those in tents a mere metres away. The youths don’t fare any better when it comes to characterisation either. They are your usual slasher movie group and aside from Zosia none have any real depth or back story, and for the most part they don’t live enough for you to care anyway.
But even considering all of the above, by far the worst crime of this film is the fact that it’s dubbed. Dubbing is one of my personal pet peeves. I cannot abide watching anything where the sound doesn’t sync with actors mouths moving, especially when the dubbing isn’t intended as tongue in cheek. And worse still, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight features the most cringeworthy dubbing I’ve ever heard, with some very stereotypical American voiceovers that are made worse by the cheesy script that tries to shoehorn in as many geeky pop cultures references that it can find. Within 10 minutes I’d had enough and I do wonder if this film could’ve been much more bearable has it just been subtitled instead.
Dubbing aside, this film is still pretty poor and riddled with so many clichés that you can barely discern any truly original ideas. If you want to watch a horror film like this, you’d be better off watching the classic originals.
The film follows a small group centred around Zosia (Julia Wieniawa), as they head out from the camp on a 3 day trek into the woods and encounter some very unfriendly locals. I’m afraid that from the very start, there’s nothing about this film that is particularly original. Pretty much every classic slasher horror is noticeably referenced here, from Friday the 13th to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and everything in between. It even drifts into sci-fi at one point. Some might say this is a homage to these films, but for me it was just a blatant copy. From the hillbilly bad guys in wooden cabins to the use of a machete, it all just felt so unoriginal. There was nothing at all in this that didn’t remind me of another, much better film. And that’s not even taking into account all of the clichéd horror movie tropes that are thrown in throughout - I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen dismembered deer/wildlife and phone batteries that are conveniently dying to name but a few, and Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight can’t seem to avoid these.
Despite this, there are some (very few) positives. The score is surprisingly atmospheric and dramatic, and works so well to build some much needed tension. The practical special effects, at least in the death scenes, are also good and there’s a pretty decent amount of gore. However this is pretty much the only good things I can say about this film. Whilst the death effects might be good, the creature/enemy effects are severely lacking and they look very cheap and second rate. It doesn’t help that their characters are rather silly and have no real purpose other than to kill. And even their murdering appears to be nonsensical and sporadic – for instance in one scene killing a character who’s outside yet completely ignoring those in tents a mere metres away. The youths don’t fare any better when it comes to characterisation either. They are your usual slasher movie group and aside from Zosia none have any real depth or back story, and for the most part they don’t live enough for you to care anyway.
But even considering all of the above, by far the worst crime of this film is the fact that it’s dubbed. Dubbing is one of my personal pet peeves. I cannot abide watching anything where the sound doesn’t sync with actors mouths moving, especially when the dubbing isn’t intended as tongue in cheek. And worse still, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight features the most cringeworthy dubbing I’ve ever heard, with some very stereotypical American voiceovers that are made worse by the cheesy script that tries to shoehorn in as many geeky pop cultures references that it can find. Within 10 minutes I’d had enough and I do wonder if this film could’ve been much more bearable has it just been subtitled instead.
Dubbing aside, this film is still pretty poor and riddled with so many clichés that you can barely discern any truly original ideas. If you want to watch a horror film like this, you’d be better off watching the classic originals.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jul 24, 2021
Enjoyable...enough
If you have any interest in checking out F9:THE FAST SAGA, then you have seen at least 1 (if not more) of the other 9 films in this series - and you pretty much know what to expect.
And this film delivers on that expectation - no more, no less.
Director Justin Lin - a veteran of these films - knows what needs to happen in this series. So we get fast cars, macho men, kick-ass women, super villains and over-the-top stunts and situations. All brought to us with a wink and a shrug. Unapologetic about the absurdities that we are viewing (not to spoil, but I don’t think magnets really work the way they work in this film) and “upping the ante” at every turn.
This film largely delivers…if not spectacularly. The action sequences (which is really why we watch these films) are “good enough”. Nothing really new here, but I caught myself cackling at the events on the screen from time to time.
The “family” is back together and Vin Diesel & Michelle Rodriguez are the pseudo Mom and Dad of this ragtag group of heroes that include the smart one (Game Of Thrones’ Nathalie Emanuel) and the wise guys (Chris “Ludicrous” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson) - who know exactly what type of film they are making and what their roles in this film are as well as the “emotional center”, Jordana Brewster. All of these deliver their wooden lines with gritty resolve while clenching their jaws during their close-ups during the action scenes.
There also is a boatload of cameos from veterans of previous Fast and Furious films from the likes of Kurt Russell, Helen Mirren, Lucas Black, Shea Wigham and Charlize Theron as well as brief appearances by “newcomers” like Michael Rooker and Cardi B. They all join in on the fun at the appropriate level and look like they are having a good time.
The biggest disappointment for me was John Cena as the main villain in this piece. He just wasn’t “villainous” enough and came off pretty generic and “meh” - never a good thing for a bad guy in these types of films.
Oh…and there is a “surprise return” by a presumably thought dead character, that is no surprise at all, since his face is shown prominently in the advertisements for this film. I won’t spoil it for you here, but he does bring some needed energy to this film. Which leads me to speculate that Gal Gadot will probably show up in the next film (her character was killed off many Fast and Furious films ago when she started becoming a SuperStar).
Ultimately, what is missing from F9 is some “fun energy”. Something that…oh…a good villain…or someone like…Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would bring. But, alas, “The Rock” and Vin Diesel did not get along in their previous outings together, so we will need to limp along with what we have.
Which is what the 10th film in this Universe ultimately does - limp along just good enough to be enjoyable, but not more than that, which makes F9 neither Fast nor Furious.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And this film delivers on that expectation - no more, no less.
Director Justin Lin - a veteran of these films - knows what needs to happen in this series. So we get fast cars, macho men, kick-ass women, super villains and over-the-top stunts and situations. All brought to us with a wink and a shrug. Unapologetic about the absurdities that we are viewing (not to spoil, but I don’t think magnets really work the way they work in this film) and “upping the ante” at every turn.
This film largely delivers…if not spectacularly. The action sequences (which is really why we watch these films) are “good enough”. Nothing really new here, but I caught myself cackling at the events on the screen from time to time.
The “family” is back together and Vin Diesel & Michelle Rodriguez are the pseudo Mom and Dad of this ragtag group of heroes that include the smart one (Game Of Thrones’ Nathalie Emanuel) and the wise guys (Chris “Ludicrous” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson) - who know exactly what type of film they are making and what their roles in this film are as well as the “emotional center”, Jordana Brewster. All of these deliver their wooden lines with gritty resolve while clenching their jaws during their close-ups during the action scenes.
There also is a boatload of cameos from veterans of previous Fast and Furious films from the likes of Kurt Russell, Helen Mirren, Lucas Black, Shea Wigham and Charlize Theron as well as brief appearances by “newcomers” like Michael Rooker and Cardi B. They all join in on the fun at the appropriate level and look like they are having a good time.
The biggest disappointment for me was John Cena as the main villain in this piece. He just wasn’t “villainous” enough and came off pretty generic and “meh” - never a good thing for a bad guy in these types of films.
Oh…and there is a “surprise return” by a presumably thought dead character, that is no surprise at all, since his face is shown prominently in the advertisements for this film. I won’t spoil it for you here, but he does bring some needed energy to this film. Which leads me to speculate that Gal Gadot will probably show up in the next film (her character was killed off many Fast and Furious films ago when she started becoming a SuperStar).
Ultimately, what is missing from F9 is some “fun energy”. Something that…oh…a good villain…or someone like…Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would bring. But, alas, “The Rock” and Vin Diesel did not get along in their previous outings together, so we will need to limp along with what we have.
Which is what the 10th film in this Universe ultimately does - limp along just good enough to be enjoyable, but not more than that, which makes F9 neither Fast nor Furious.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Reverie in Books
Oct 5, 2020
I wanted to love Reverie by Ryan La Sala so much!
Reverie has a wonderful cover that draws you in immediately. The plot mentions a boy and a fantasy world that revolves around dreams. Everything I hoped this book would be – it wasn’t.
Kane is a gay teenager who is trying to pick up the pieces of his life back together after an attack leaves him with no memories of the past. He is in the search of who he is and who he was, and he discovers an alternate reality that he was involved in.
Reveries are worlds born from a person’s private fantasies, and once they manifest they can only be unraveled by bringing their conflicts to a resolution. Reveries have rules and plots, magic and monsters – anything you could wish for. And one wrong step can twist the entire thing into a lethal nightmare maze.
Sounds complicated already?
What if I told you that this is only from the blurb and the book doesn’t really explain these things at all?
Kane is an unraveler, together with The Others. Or at least he was, until one of The Others purged Kane of his memories. And here we are now, with Kane trying to solve the mystery and fight against evil.
I jumped into this book very eagerly, and was disappointing immediately, within the first couple of pages. The reveries and their whole concept were quite confusing, to the point of me not knowing whether the characters are now in a reverie, or in their real world.
Reverie had an amazing concept and it could’ve been done way better than this. I am just disappointed. It all seemed a bit messy and felt like it wasn’t thought through…
I didn’t connect with any of the characters, except for Kane, for the below reasons. And that was it… I didn’t care about any of the others, and there were quite a few characters.
One thing that annoyed me about Reverie, was the exaggeration of the #OwnVoices.
I am not against it, on the contrary! I love equality and I love diversity, and I share love everywhere and to everyone, and if you know me in real life, you will know this about me. We are all equal and different at the same time, and that is the unique thing that connects us all.
However, this book keeps mentioning that Kane is gay. And Kane is a lovely character. He is smart and he is brave. His memories were lost and is desperately trying to find out who he is, who he was, who are his true friends, who is good and who is evil. He doesn’t take for granted on what people tell him. He is AMAZING. Kane was so much more than just gay. But the author kept trying so hard to put an #OwnVoices hashtag on this book, that is was quite aggressive and off-putting. I love books that feature #OwnVoices, but Ryan, please – a little bit of modesty would’ve been nice.
I keep feeling this pressure of trying to write a book review that will not offend anyone, and I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I need to say that sometimes, there can be such a thing as “too much OwnVoicing” in a book. And we shouldn’t be afraid to point it out!
I am really sad about this one, guys. Honestly, I expected it to love it so bad, and now I feel down. I wouldn’t recommend it, but if you think you will love it, please pick it up. You are valid!
Reverie has a wonderful cover that draws you in immediately. The plot mentions a boy and a fantasy world that revolves around dreams. Everything I hoped this book would be – it wasn’t.
Kane is a gay teenager who is trying to pick up the pieces of his life back together after an attack leaves him with no memories of the past. He is in the search of who he is and who he was, and he discovers an alternate reality that he was involved in.
Reveries are worlds born from a person’s private fantasies, and once they manifest they can only be unraveled by bringing their conflicts to a resolution. Reveries have rules and plots, magic and monsters – anything you could wish for. And one wrong step can twist the entire thing into a lethal nightmare maze.
Sounds complicated already?
What if I told you that this is only from the blurb and the book doesn’t really explain these things at all?
Kane is an unraveler, together with The Others. Or at least he was, until one of The Others purged Kane of his memories. And here we are now, with Kane trying to solve the mystery and fight against evil.
I jumped into this book very eagerly, and was disappointing immediately, within the first couple of pages. The reveries and their whole concept were quite confusing, to the point of me not knowing whether the characters are now in a reverie, or in their real world.
Reverie had an amazing concept and it could’ve been done way better than this. I am just disappointed. It all seemed a bit messy and felt like it wasn’t thought through…
I didn’t connect with any of the characters, except for Kane, for the below reasons. And that was it… I didn’t care about any of the others, and there were quite a few characters.
One thing that annoyed me about Reverie, was the exaggeration of the #OwnVoices.
I am not against it, on the contrary! I love equality and I love diversity, and I share love everywhere and to everyone, and if you know me in real life, you will know this about me. We are all equal and different at the same time, and that is the unique thing that connects us all.
However, this book keeps mentioning that Kane is gay. And Kane is a lovely character. He is smart and he is brave. His memories were lost and is desperately trying to find out who he is, who he was, who are his true friends, who is good and who is evil. He doesn’t take for granted on what people tell him. He is AMAZING. Kane was so much more than just gay. But the author kept trying so hard to put an #OwnVoices hashtag on this book, that is was quite aggressive and off-putting. I love books that feature #OwnVoices, but Ryan, please – a little bit of modesty would’ve been nice.
I keep feeling this pressure of trying to write a book review that will not offend anyone, and I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I need to say that sometimes, there can be such a thing as “too much OwnVoicing” in a book. And we shouldn’t be afraid to point it out!
I am really sad about this one, guys. Honestly, I expected it to love it so bad, and now I feel down. I wouldn’t recommend it, but if you think you will love it, please pick it up. You are valid!
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A group of Roman legionnaires in Britain are sent on a mission to find a group of missing messengers only to find themselves attacked by something that comes out with the full moon.
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
WaterMinder®
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
Loved by thousands of users all over the World. Get help with WaterMinder®, an easy, intuitive app...
Flipped Out – The Powerpuff Girls Match 3 Puzzle / Fighting Action Game
Games and Entertainment
App
Destroy monsters with match 3 puzzles or punch their lights out in action-packed melee. Play both...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avatar: The Way of Water (2021) in Movies
Jan 2, 2023
Strong Visuals - Weak Everything Else
See AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER on the biggest 3D Screen, with the best Sound System possible. It is a technical marvel…way ahead of anything that has, thus far, been seen on a movie screen.
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.