Search
Search results
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Funhouse in Books
Nov 11, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'll start off by saying that this is a re release of the Funhouse which was originally written under the pseudonym of Owen West.
I found the Funhouse to be a little disappointing, the majority of the book spends it's time building up to a big confrontation between Conrad, the main antagonist and Amy. Over 200 something pages we switch between finding out how Conrad is searching for Amy and what he will do to her to get revenge on her mother and how the past has already affected Amy's mother only for the final confrontation to take around 10 pages, most of which Conrad is not involved in the action and, when he does show up he's dealt with in a couple of sentences.
In the edition I read there is an afterword by Dean Koontz where he explains the history of the book, it was to be a book based on a film and, he had hoped that it would be the fist of many which is why it was written under the pseudonym Owen West. One thing the author says is that, because he had to work form a film script there wasn't much in the way of character building and so he had to spend time working on the back story. And I think that's part of the problem, the book shows us how events in Amy's mother's past have affected her mothers out look on life and her children and we see how the same events led Conrad down his path of revenge but the book ends with Amy and her brother leaving the fun house after escaping Conrad, which is probably the films end, the protagonist deals with the bad guy, walks away and cut to credits. However, with all the time spent on the character building I felt like we, the reader could have done with a bit more, probably only one more chapter but I would have liked to know how Amy's mother would have reacted when she found out what Conrad had done (As the book ended she didn't even know Conrad was around) and how it would have changed her outlook on her family. Would she have found the peace and forgiveness she was looking for? and would she stop treating her own children as monsters?
Over all 'The Funhouse' had it's moments but the felt like a let down with its quick ending.
I found the Funhouse to be a little disappointing, the majority of the book spends it's time building up to a big confrontation between Conrad, the main antagonist and Amy. Over 200 something pages we switch between finding out how Conrad is searching for Amy and what he will do to her to get revenge on her mother and how the past has already affected Amy's mother only for the final confrontation to take around 10 pages, most of which Conrad is not involved in the action and, when he does show up he's dealt with in a couple of sentences.
In the edition I read there is an afterword by Dean Koontz where he explains the history of the book, it was to be a book based on a film and, he had hoped that it would be the fist of many which is why it was written under the pseudonym Owen West. One thing the author says is that, because he had to work form a film script there wasn't much in the way of character building and so he had to spend time working on the back story. And I think that's part of the problem, the book shows us how events in Amy's mother's past have affected her mothers out look on life and her children and we see how the same events led Conrad down his path of revenge but the book ends with Amy and her brother leaving the fun house after escaping Conrad, which is probably the films end, the protagonist deals with the bad guy, walks away and cut to credits. However, with all the time spent on the character building I felt like we, the reader could have done with a bit more, probably only one more chapter but I would have liked to know how Amy's mother would have reacted when she found out what Conrad had done (As the book ended she didn't even know Conrad was around) and how it would have changed her outlook on her family. Would she have found the peace and forgiveness she was looking for? and would she stop treating her own children as monsters?
Over all 'The Funhouse' had it's moments but the felt like a let down with its quick ending.
The League of Gentlemen's Book of Precious Things
Book
"The League of Gentlemen" have been making audiences laugh for years, but what makes them tick and...
Erika (17789 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jun 15, 2021
Full disclosure, I absolutely loved the first Peter Rabbit film. I found it completely hilarious and cackled numerous times. The sequel did not make me laugh.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
Meryl Streep: Anatomy of an Actor
Book
One of the most talented actresses of her generation, Meryl Streep provides a high benchmark by...
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Hugh Jackman completes his journey as Wolverine (1 more)
An emotional journey
Mutant with Human emotion
There are so many superhero movies these days, that the genre becomes somewhat dull and repetitive, especially when it comes to Marvel (not saying Marvel is dull and boring, but some of the films are somewhat lacking due to how many films there are each year - Just my opinion), but Logan is one of the greatest comic book movies I have seen for a while, for the fact that it makes Logan more human and explores the feeling of trying to fit into society, despite being so different.
Logan has always had a part of him deep down that just wants to be normal. He never wanted his power and though he's thankful for it in some ways he feels like he wouldn't have been lost without it if he never had it to begin with. This film explores that notion even further than the previous films as shows us Logan in the role of a father figure to young Laura and a son figure to a now very old Charles Xavier. In this film Logan doesn't feel like he's a mutant in the company of other mutants, He feels like he's apart of a family.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!
Later in the film we see Logan's fatherly side after Charles passes away, and Logan risks everything to keep Laura safe and to teach her right and wrong, and give her a parenting love that she hasn't known before in her young life. This also shines through the portrayal of young Laura (portrayed by the talented Dafne Keen) as we see her become more and more attached to Old Man Logan (I had to!). This is what makes this film the most human feeling superhero movie that I've ever seen.
The R rating makes this film come to life by bringing death in the most brutal of ways because it allows Laura to see what Logan has become and makes his message to her and to the audience a lot clearer. "Don't become what they made you"
Through all of the bloody violence and anger Laura is able to understand those words more clearly than if it was a 15 rated film because we see Logan when he becomes savage and truly unleashes his full anger that's built up over his long lifetime of war and hatred.
When this film comes to an end (my lord that ending had me balling like a baby) and we see Laura say her final goodbyes to Logan, you don't want it to end because you know that this has finally been the one time that Logan felt human and felt a true connection to someone. (Also because we want Hugh Jackman to be Wolverine forever)
The cinematography and directing of this movie is beautiful to look at and witness as the scenes unfold. The cast perform to the highest of standards and really deliver a convincing story the makes you feel sympathetic to each of the main characters.
Wolverine will never be the same without Hugh Jackman, but we must not be too quick to dismiss the new casting choice when it comes around. You never know, they might surprise you.
Logan has always had a part of him deep down that just wants to be normal. He never wanted his power and though he's thankful for it in some ways he feels like he wouldn't have been lost without it if he never had it to begin with. This film explores that notion even further than the previous films as shows us Logan in the role of a father figure to young Laura and a son figure to a now very old Charles Xavier. In this film Logan doesn't feel like he's a mutant in the company of other mutants, He feels like he's apart of a family.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!
Later in the film we see Logan's fatherly side after Charles passes away, and Logan risks everything to keep Laura safe and to teach her right and wrong, and give her a parenting love that she hasn't known before in her young life. This also shines through the portrayal of young Laura (portrayed by the talented Dafne Keen) as we see her become more and more attached to Old Man Logan (I had to!). This is what makes this film the most human feeling superhero movie that I've ever seen.
The R rating makes this film come to life by bringing death in the most brutal of ways because it allows Laura to see what Logan has become and makes his message to her and to the audience a lot clearer. "Don't become what they made you"
Through all of the bloody violence and anger Laura is able to understand those words more clearly than if it was a 15 rated film because we see Logan when he becomes savage and truly unleashes his full anger that's built up over his long lifetime of war and hatred.
When this film comes to an end (my lord that ending had me balling like a baby) and we see Laura say her final goodbyes to Logan, you don't want it to end because you know that this has finally been the one time that Logan felt human and felt a true connection to someone. (Also because we want Hugh Jackman to be Wolverine forever)
The cinematography and directing of this movie is beautiful to look at and witness as the scenes unfold. The cast perform to the highest of standards and really deliver a convincing story the makes you feel sympathetic to each of the main characters.
Wolverine will never be the same without Hugh Jackman, but we must not be too quick to dismiss the new casting choice when it comes around. You never know, they might surprise you.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1999) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
Look, there had to be something British on the list! Brighton Rock, Get Carter, The Long Good Friday and Sexy Beast were all considered, as was Ritchie’s own follow up to this stylised romp, Snatch. But, in the end, I chose this because it is the most fun to watch, and really re-invented the non American crime film. For my money a tighter film than Snatch, and less silly, Lock Stock has a naivety that puts you on an equal footing with its protagonists and keeps you engaged from start to hilarious finish. Its sense of humour is key to its success, as we watch one botched effort to get ahead after another. The pay off moments are glorious, and the whole package is wrapped up in every cinematic trick in the book, making it a dizzying rollercoaster experience you never forget first watching. There is a nastiness of spirit and “laddishness” underlying it that is perhaps a little too indulged without a sense of irony, but you can always forgive it. Will it continue to age as well as some on this list, I’m not sure.
Suite for Barbara Loden
Nathalie Leger, Natasha Lehrer and Cecile Menon
Book
First published in France in 2012 to critical and popular acclaim, this is the first book about the...
Nikki Pugh (2 KP) rated American Assassin (2017) in Movies
Nov 19, 2017
Not a patch on the book
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay so if you have read the books you'll know a few things were seriously off about this film. Plot for a start.
The book's plot circles around the Lockabie bombing which most of today's young audience will not remember so a plot update was definitely needed and setting the first scene on a beach with terrorists shooting tourists was a good plot call. I settled down in my seat thinking this might just work....and then the rest of the film happened.
Everyone did a good job trying to inject some feeling and drama into the limp script - Michael keaton was excellent - but there is no disguising the fact that this was intended as a for-runner for a Mitch Rap franchise. The plot was ludicrous, the characters under developed and overacted.
Maybe the next one will have me routing for Mitch instead of wishing I had gone to see the My Little Pony Movie...that would have been a lot less painful.
The book's plot circles around the Lockabie bombing which most of today's young audience will not remember so a plot update was definitely needed and setting the first scene on a beach with terrorists shooting tourists was a good plot call. I settled down in my seat thinking this might just work....and then the rest of the film happened.
Everyone did a good job trying to inject some feeling and drama into the limp script - Michael keaton was excellent - but there is no disguising the fact that this was intended as a for-runner for a Mitch Rap franchise. The plot was ludicrous, the characters under developed and overacted.
Maybe the next one will have me routing for Mitch instead of wishing I had gone to see the My Little Pony Movie...that would have been a lot less painful.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) in Movies
Jul 4, 2018
Avengers meets John Wick
Having been completely unfamiliar with the source comic book material, I was unsure the tone or visuals I viewed in this film are consistent with that or not, so I just have to judge on their own merits.
Anyone who follows my reviews knows I am not the hugest fan of nonsense or robust excessive CGI in place of good acting story and screenplay, so I have to say this film suffered from a little bit of that. Some of the kill scenes bordered on a little silly, having been done much better and more realistic in John Wick.
Having said that, I was never bored while watching and thought the acting, especially that of Samuel L. Jackson, was pretty good for the most part.
It definitely feels like more style than substance in some parts, but maybe that was the point. I will always side with realism over hyper-realism unless done very well, and I feel this film falls a bit short.
Anyone who follows my reviews knows I am not the hugest fan of nonsense or robust excessive CGI in place of good acting story and screenplay, so I have to say this film suffered from a little bit of that. Some of the kill scenes bordered on a little silly, having been done much better and more realistic in John Wick.
Having said that, I was never bored while watching and thought the acting, especially that of Samuel L. Jackson, was pretty good for the most part.
It definitely feels like more style than substance in some parts, but maybe that was the point. I will always side with realism over hyper-realism unless done very well, and I feel this film falls a bit short.
Hara05 (11 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The Wizarding World Needs To Be Left Alone
I'm a huge Harry Potter fan. I fell in love as soon as I opened the first book back in 1997 and I've compiled a very extensive, mostly useless knowledge base on the subject.
I put up with the first Fantastic Beasts film for two reasons: I was craving some Potter magic and the 'beasts' were adorable, fascinating and comical. The first film has enough magic, enough fun and enough humour to allow me to enjoy it but Crimes of Grindelwald? Nah. Just Nah.
I can't help but feel completely rinsed by this film. It breaks away from canon, turning a world I've devoted so much time too onto its head. It tells us that everything we have learned, everything we've spent our money and time on, is basically wrong. I haven't been a fan of Rowling dishes out new pieces of information here and there as if she has always known them - just be honest with us and tell us that time has made you think of these things or see things in a different light. She's still an intelligent, creative woman - she doesn't need to keep trying to prove it.
Crimes of Grindelwald just isn't as magical, as innovative or as creative as the Harry Potter series and the viewer can't help but feel that the writers are clutching at straws in order to attempt to build another franchise. They rely too heavily on people's love for the Wizarding World and don't actually offer us much more, or anything of value with this film. It's convoluted, clichéd and at times, predictable. It uses characters so wonderfully fleshed out in the previous film and completely changes who they are in a simple two minute, completely random scene. It feels as if there is no direction to these films, as if Crimes of Grindelwald is a different entity, split from Fantastic Beasts but shoved under that arch in order to make a buck.
I was truly so disappointed with this movie. I felt let down by Rowling and the filmmakers because I've been so loyal to this franchise and I wanted this new installment to be wonderful. I wanted to feel nostalgic and engrossed when I watched this but instead, I was picking out holes in the storyline and pointing out errors. This is not what we expect from what is essentially, a Harry Potter film.
We have three more of these films to get through. I just hope they up their game and are more tolerable than Crimes of Grindelwald.
I put up with the first Fantastic Beasts film for two reasons: I was craving some Potter magic and the 'beasts' were adorable, fascinating and comical. The first film has enough magic, enough fun and enough humour to allow me to enjoy it but Crimes of Grindelwald? Nah. Just Nah.
I can't help but feel completely rinsed by this film. It breaks away from canon, turning a world I've devoted so much time too onto its head. It tells us that everything we have learned, everything we've spent our money and time on, is basically wrong. I haven't been a fan of Rowling dishes out new pieces of information here and there as if she has always known them - just be honest with us and tell us that time has made you think of these things or see things in a different light. She's still an intelligent, creative woman - she doesn't need to keep trying to prove it.
Crimes of Grindelwald just isn't as magical, as innovative or as creative as the Harry Potter series and the viewer can't help but feel that the writers are clutching at straws in order to attempt to build another franchise. They rely too heavily on people's love for the Wizarding World and don't actually offer us much more, or anything of value with this film. It's convoluted, clichéd and at times, predictable. It uses characters so wonderfully fleshed out in the previous film and completely changes who they are in a simple two minute, completely random scene. It feels as if there is no direction to these films, as if Crimes of Grindelwald is a different entity, split from Fantastic Beasts but shoved under that arch in order to make a buck.
I was truly so disappointed with this movie. I felt let down by Rowling and the filmmakers because I've been so loyal to this franchise and I wanted this new installment to be wonderful. I wanted to feel nostalgic and engrossed when I watched this but instead, I was picking out holes in the storyline and pointing out errors. This is not what we expect from what is essentially, a Harry Potter film.
We have three more of these films to get through. I just hope they up their game and are more tolerable than Crimes of Grindelwald.