Search
Search results
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Playing with Fire (2019) in Movies
Apr 27, 2022
Surprisingly entertaining
Originally I decided to avoid this because I'm becoming annoyed with bog standard movies starring John Cena.... But as Netflix is becoming awkwardly limited in range...
This brilliant little gem was wonderfully entertaining, with its nice little story about family and friends as well as taking care of business haha.
Following a struggling crew of Smoke Jumpers (not to be confused with fire fighters lol) with by the book, no fun and games leader Duke (John cena) edging for a promotion to head firefighter who after rescuing 3 children from a house fire ends up babysitting the trio whilst waiting for their "out of town" parents to collect them creating nothing but chaos for the crew as they struggle to understand what is happening and how they will survive.
The casting was odd yet on point, the story and plot were wonderfully written and John cena can be entertaining.
A genuinely fun family film that will have you laughing unexpectedly.
This brilliant little gem was wonderfully entertaining, with its nice little story about family and friends as well as taking care of business haha.
Following a struggling crew of Smoke Jumpers (not to be confused with fire fighters lol) with by the book, no fun and games leader Duke (John cena) edging for a promotion to head firefighter who after rescuing 3 children from a house fire ends up babysitting the trio whilst waiting for their "out of town" parents to collect them creating nothing but chaos for the crew as they struggle to understand what is happening and how they will survive.
The casting was odd yet on point, the story and plot were wonderfully written and John cena can be entertaining.
A genuinely fun family film that will have you laughing unexpectedly.
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (Caster Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I was made aware of this book when, at the cinema to see Les Miserables, I saw the trailer for the film adaptation. Apart from loving the song, which immediately went on my iPod when I got home (Seven Devils – Florence + the Machine), what I saw caught my attention enough to jot down the name and read the book.
Beautiful Creatures is set in the fictional town of Gatlin, South Carolina. Ethan Wate, from whose perspective the book is written, describes his town’s residents as either “stupid or stuck”, and can’t wait to leave, bored with the banality of his life. Fairly soon into the book, the reader is pulled into his dream, where we meet a girl smelling of lemons and rosemary, in need of help. A girl who, although he hasn’t yet met her, Ethan can’t live without.
The girl is Lena Duchannes (“Duchannes rhymes with rain”), with black hair, green eyes, and mysterious powers that see her surrounded by the pathetic fallacy. It’s often raining when Lena’s upset, and at one point there’s even a tornado. Lena’s a Caster, a broader term for a witch that, within her family, also includes a palimpsest, a siren and an incubus. The main premise of the story is that Lena’s family is cursed, and on the night of their sixteenth birthday each member of that family becomes ‘claimed’ as either a dark or light Caster. Lena keeps a count on her hand of how many days she has left until this night, but until she gets to that point, she’s tormented by a Carrie-esque group of Gatlin-born-and-raised girls, alongside much of the rest of the town.
I read quite a good blog post on this a few days ago, although, sorry, I can’t find it again for love nor money now! They pointed out that Ethan had a fair few feminine qualities (being very observant of Lena’s clothes, for example), but that if the story had been written from Lena’s perspective, it would have been 900 pages of teenage angst. I agree with that! It’s easy to see why she would be feeling so fraught though – it is made clear that she has no control over which way she will turn. If she is claimed as a Dark Caster, the book says, her personality will completely change, and she’ll no longer be able to see the family she has grown up with (apart from Ridley, I guess).
I did enjoy the story – it was fast paced, there was always enough going on to hold my attention, and there was a great twist at the end that I didn’t see coming. I really liked the fact that Lena craved normality, even though it was, ironically, the thing that Ethan hates about his town. As a teenager with medical/weight/my share of social issues, I could really relate to the idea that, despite whatever else she had going on, she just wanted to be able to do what everyone else does, no matter how boring or basic it may seem. That really resonated with me.
I was also really fascinated with the character of Ridley. She came strutting onto the scene and automatically made my jaw drop, as I think she was supposed to. Even when we’re told she’s a Dark Caster, her struggle with good and bad always seems to be lurking somewhere. <spoiler>I thought it really added grit to the book that she and Lena were best friends all through their childhood – you can really tell that Ridley still wants what’s best for Lena, even if that later translates to her trying to help Sarafine turn Lena towards the dark side. Then, later on, it’s obvious she has feelings for Link, and even the darkness within her can’t squash that. It’s an intriguing conflict!</spoiler>
However, I think this book will only ever be a guilty pleasure, and that’s because of the love thing. Now, I must admit, it’s not as bad as the Twilight film (which sickened me, and put me off reading the books), where Bella and Edward meet and she’s almost straight away “in love” with him. However, it’s still obvious almost from the beginning that by the end of the book, Lena and Ethan will have said those 3 overused, under-meant words – “I love you”. She’s 15, and he’s 16, by the way. <spoiler>The book manages to make it seem like their destiny by making their ancestors romantically linked, but I’m still not sure.</spoiler> I admit this may be because I’m slightly biased; I’ve never been in love, and didn’t actually have a boyfriend as a teenager. Maybe it is really easy to fall in love, I don’t know. To me though, being realistic is important – even in a fantasy book. As a reader, I need to be able to relate to the characters in some way, and it seemed like a cliche to make their feelings so intense, despite the events in the book.
Then, there’s the ending. While I really enjoyed the twist at the end, it was over too quickly. <spoiler>There was so much build up to meeting Sarafine, only for her to die (it seemed like) 10 minutes after she was first introduced. Plus, what happened to Ridley? Technically, Lena didn’t choose a side, so I do want to read further on in the series to see what happened to her – I’ll be really disappointed if she’s just forgotten about. As well as this, I want to know more about the name changes – why are they necessary, and do the new names fit them better somehow?</spoiler>
Well, if you’ve made it through my rambling, I’m impressed! I know I haven’t mentioned several important characters (Amma, for one), but I’ve covered most of the things I remember thinking about the book. Overall, I did like it and I reckon I'll see the film when it comes out on DVD, as well as reading more of the series, but I did see some parallels with Twilight, which isn't necessarily a good thing!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Beautiful Creatures is set in the fictional town of Gatlin, South Carolina. Ethan Wate, from whose perspective the book is written, describes his town’s residents as either “stupid or stuck”, and can’t wait to leave, bored with the banality of his life. Fairly soon into the book, the reader is pulled into his dream, where we meet a girl smelling of lemons and rosemary, in need of help. A girl who, although he hasn’t yet met her, Ethan can’t live without.
The girl is Lena Duchannes (“Duchannes rhymes with rain”), with black hair, green eyes, and mysterious powers that see her surrounded by the pathetic fallacy. It’s often raining when Lena’s upset, and at one point there’s even a tornado. Lena’s a Caster, a broader term for a witch that, within her family, also includes a palimpsest, a siren and an incubus. The main premise of the story is that Lena’s family is cursed, and on the night of their sixteenth birthday each member of that family becomes ‘claimed’ as either a dark or light Caster. Lena keeps a count on her hand of how many days she has left until this night, but until she gets to that point, she’s tormented by a Carrie-esque group of Gatlin-born-and-raised girls, alongside much of the rest of the town.
I read quite a good blog post on this a few days ago, although, sorry, I can’t find it again for love nor money now! They pointed out that Ethan had a fair few feminine qualities (being very observant of Lena’s clothes, for example), but that if the story had been written from Lena’s perspective, it would have been 900 pages of teenage angst. I agree with that! It’s easy to see why she would be feeling so fraught though – it is made clear that she has no control over which way she will turn. If she is claimed as a Dark Caster, the book says, her personality will completely change, and she’ll no longer be able to see the family she has grown up with (apart from Ridley, I guess).
I did enjoy the story – it was fast paced, there was always enough going on to hold my attention, and there was a great twist at the end that I didn’t see coming. I really liked the fact that Lena craved normality, even though it was, ironically, the thing that Ethan hates about his town. As a teenager with medical/weight/my share of social issues, I could really relate to the idea that, despite whatever else she had going on, she just wanted to be able to do what everyone else does, no matter how boring or basic it may seem. That really resonated with me.
I was also really fascinated with the character of Ridley. She came strutting onto the scene and automatically made my jaw drop, as I think she was supposed to. Even when we’re told she’s a Dark Caster, her struggle with good and bad always seems to be lurking somewhere. <spoiler>I thought it really added grit to the book that she and Lena were best friends all through their childhood – you can really tell that Ridley still wants what’s best for Lena, even if that later translates to her trying to help Sarafine turn Lena towards the dark side. Then, later on, it’s obvious she has feelings for Link, and even the darkness within her can’t squash that. It’s an intriguing conflict!</spoiler>
However, I think this book will only ever be a guilty pleasure, and that’s because of the love thing. Now, I must admit, it’s not as bad as the Twilight film (which sickened me, and put me off reading the books), where Bella and Edward meet and she’s almost straight away “in love” with him. However, it’s still obvious almost from the beginning that by the end of the book, Lena and Ethan will have said those 3 overused, under-meant words – “I love you”. She’s 15, and he’s 16, by the way. <spoiler>The book manages to make it seem like their destiny by making their ancestors romantically linked, but I’m still not sure.</spoiler> I admit this may be because I’m slightly biased; I’ve never been in love, and didn’t actually have a boyfriend as a teenager. Maybe it is really easy to fall in love, I don’t know. To me though, being realistic is important – even in a fantasy book. As a reader, I need to be able to relate to the characters in some way, and it seemed like a cliche to make their feelings so intense, despite the events in the book.
Then, there’s the ending. While I really enjoyed the twist at the end, it was over too quickly. <spoiler>There was so much build up to meeting Sarafine, only for her to die (it seemed like) 10 minutes after she was first introduced. Plus, what happened to Ridley? Technically, Lena didn’t choose a side, so I do want to read further on in the series to see what happened to her – I’ll be really disappointed if she’s just forgotten about. As well as this, I want to know more about the name changes – why are they necessary, and do the new names fit them better somehow?</spoiler>
Well, if you’ve made it through my rambling, I’m impressed! I know I haven’t mentioned several important characters (Amma, for one), but I’ve covered most of the things I remember thinking about the book. Overall, I did like it and I reckon I'll see the film when it comes out on DVD, as well as reading more of the series, but I did see some parallels with Twilight, which isn't necessarily a good thing!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The Communication Scarcity in Agriculture
Jessica Eise and Whitney Hodde
Book
Today, the general public craves information on food and agriculture with an unprecedented passion....
The Lady from the Sea
Jules Wright and Thomas Zanon-Larcher
Book
Inspired by Henrik Ibsen's The Lady from the Sea, the photographer Thomas Zanon-Larcher and theatre...
FC
Film Censorship in America: A State-by-State History
Book
Digital media delivers movies, music, and archives of information to our fingertips but not long ago...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Paddington (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The timeless storybook written by Michael Bond about a loveable, well-mannered immigrant Bear who tries to adapt to the human world.
The movie opens up with an English Explorer, Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie), who ventures to the darkest Peru and encounters Paddington’s Aunt Lucy(voiced by Imelda Stauton) and Uncle Pastuzo(voiced by Michael Gambon). Instead of shooting them to take back to the Geographers’ Guild to be stuffed, he teaches them to speak English and introduces them to marmalade. He ends his adventure by telling the two bears he would always give them a home in London. Fast forward 40 years, Lucy and Pastuzo are now raising their very energetic nephew (voiced by Ben Wishaw) and teach him everything they know about London and how to make marmalade. Sadly, tragedy strikes after a devastating earthquake destroys their home. This forces Aunt Lucy to allow the young bear to stowaway on a ship bound for London to find Montgomery Clyde, the explorer, while she takes residence at a facility for retired bears.
The little bear is discovered by the Brown family while wandering Paddington Station. After reading the tag that says, “Please look after this bear,” the Browns take him home and give him the name Paddington. They also agreed to help him find the explorer that once befriended his aunt and uncle. Confused by his new unfamiliar surroundings, Paddington becomes an accident prone guest who inadvertently creates chaos and devastation where ever he goes.
Writer/Director Paul King has made an ingeniously witty, funny film that will appeal to moviegoers of all ages. A sweet and playful take on the beloved 1950s children’s book. For the most part, it does follow the storyline of the book. With the exception of the character Millicent, played by Nicole Kidman, who is a museum taxidermist. She wants nothing more than to make Paddington the newest member of the museum’s collection of stuffed exotic animals.
You can’t help but fall in love with Paddington, and it’s just as easy to love the Brown family. This is a delightfully charming film with the perfect amount of quirkiness. A story of a lost child trying to find friends and a place to belong. A wonderful movie that will melt your heart!
The movie opens up with an English Explorer, Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie), who ventures to the darkest Peru and encounters Paddington’s Aunt Lucy(voiced by Imelda Stauton) and Uncle Pastuzo(voiced by Michael Gambon). Instead of shooting them to take back to the Geographers’ Guild to be stuffed, he teaches them to speak English and introduces them to marmalade. He ends his adventure by telling the two bears he would always give them a home in London. Fast forward 40 years, Lucy and Pastuzo are now raising their very energetic nephew (voiced by Ben Wishaw) and teach him everything they know about London and how to make marmalade. Sadly, tragedy strikes after a devastating earthquake destroys their home. This forces Aunt Lucy to allow the young bear to stowaway on a ship bound for London to find Montgomery Clyde, the explorer, while she takes residence at a facility for retired bears.
The little bear is discovered by the Brown family while wandering Paddington Station. After reading the tag that says, “Please look after this bear,” the Browns take him home and give him the name Paddington. They also agreed to help him find the explorer that once befriended his aunt and uncle. Confused by his new unfamiliar surroundings, Paddington becomes an accident prone guest who inadvertently creates chaos and devastation where ever he goes.
Writer/Director Paul King has made an ingeniously witty, funny film that will appeal to moviegoers of all ages. A sweet and playful take on the beloved 1950s children’s book. For the most part, it does follow the storyline of the book. With the exception of the character Millicent, played by Nicole Kidman, who is a museum taxidermist. She wants nothing more than to make Paddington the newest member of the museum’s collection of stuffed exotic animals.
You can’t help but fall in love with Paddington, and it’s just as easy to love the Brown family. This is a delightfully charming film with the perfect amount of quirkiness. A story of a lost child trying to find friends and a place to belong. A wonderful movie that will melt your heart!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
Lou Grande (148 KP) rated Sarah in Books
Jun 29, 2018
There is so much wrong with this book, and not just because it features a victim of child sex trafficking as the protagonist. The story of JT LeRoy is more interesting than Sarah. LeRoy doesn't exist. The person writing these books was a white woman in her forties. However, she claimed to be someone like the character in this book: a male or intersex child prostitute raised by a drug addicted mother. The media EXPLODED over this. Garbage wrote a song about these characters ("Cherry Lips" on Beautiful Garbage); Asia Argento adapted Sarah into an unsuccessful film, and Gus Van Sant designed the cover! When it came time to make a media appearance, she hired her sister-in-law, who was kind of masculine, to portray the "character" of JT LeRoy.
Thing is, this book is basically Hogg by Samuel Delaney. He's a gay man who wrote a similar book three months before the Stonewall Riots. It's full of anger and rage, and it's more depraved and weird than anything LeRoy could conjure up. The parallels are clear: both feature underage protagonists who are largely nameless and passive, used for sexual purposes, usually at the hands of truck drivers. And Hogg is better in every way. It punches you in the face, where Sarah pulls back at the last second.
Is the story fun to read? Sure, in a sick kind of way. But the fact that it was done before, and better, and by someone who lives in the LGBT community, makes it hard for me to stomach. As it is, this feels like LGBT fanfiction.
Thing is, this book is basically Hogg by Samuel Delaney. He's a gay man who wrote a similar book three months before the Stonewall Riots. It's full of anger and rage, and it's more depraved and weird than anything LeRoy could conjure up. The parallels are clear: both feature underage protagonists who are largely nameless and passive, used for sexual purposes, usually at the hands of truck drivers. And Hogg is better in every way. It punches you in the face, where Sarah pulls back at the last second.
Is the story fun to read? Sure, in a sick kind of way. But the fact that it was done before, and better, and by someone who lives in the LGBT community, makes it hard for me to stomach. As it is, this feels like LGBT fanfiction.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020 (Updated Jan 6, 2020)
A funny angle
Gentleman is Guy Richie's attempt to bring the british gangster movies from the past back into the modern time and while it may just be an updated version of Snatch its a bloody enjoyable update. It seems like years ago now since I grew out of the 'British Gangster' film phase of my life and while I actaully find Snatch to be over rated myself instead much preferring Guy Richie's other work I can still understand why it has such a big following. Gentleman follows the same formula either deliberately or coincidentally and while this does feel repetative/outdated I couldnt help but be pulled in and deliciously entertained by it. Playing out a bit like reading a comic book Gentleman is satisfyingly violent, full of cusing/crudness and full of mostly satisfying twists and turns. At first I hated it but after the first 20 minutes I just let go and finally started getting back in to this sort of style. Full to the brim with exposition dialog but its handled in a refreshing new way which made hearing it less eye rolling and instead kept it constantly entertaining. Essentially one big power struggle between an assortment of characters non of which are actually very nice people but the ones Hugh Grant and Charlie hunnam play are extremely likeable. Watching these two interact on screen is the absolute bread and butter and they both play interesting characters both with very unique individual traits and characteristics. Colin Farrell is also superb and memorable too and the film has a wicked sense of humor that kept me laughing the whole way through. If you are easily offended its safe to say this is not the film for you as its not only full of extreame cursing but constant racism and violence too. By no means a perfect film or a gangster masterpiece Gentleman is still and absolute blast to watch and has enough twists/turns, quirky characters, witty dialog, fresh ideas, tension, violence/mucking about to entertain and offend pretty much anyone. Highly enjoyable.
AA
Authentic and Inauthentic Places in Tourism: From Heritage Sites to Theme Parks
Book
With the rise of post-truth and fake news, a thorough examination of authenticity has never been so...