Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Magic of Terry Pratchett in Books
May 27, 2020
As a child who was brought up in a house of Discworld stories, with a stepfather who (still) proudly displays the Clarecraft Rincewind figurine which bears an uncanny likeness to him, and a mother who has a matching Nanny Ogg (it bears no likeness but let’s just say encompasses a couple of her characteristics), this was an ARC that I was frankly desperate to read. I have to thank Netgalley and Marc Burrows for granting me this opportunity. My opinions are enthusiastic, and entirely my own.
As a 32 year old female, mother and accountant you may be forgiven for expecting my book reviews to be based around chick-lit or classical novels and, although it is the case that I own several very well-read copies of Pride & Prejudice, I am wholly a child of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Terry Pratchett novels sit alongside George RR Martin, Terry Brooks, David Eddings and Ursula Le Guin in my house; I owned and loved Discworld computer games and probably know every word to the film Labyrinth.
It could therefore be said that I would find Marc Burrow’s biography fascinating regardless: however, I am ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I knew very little about the life of the author whose books I admire so much.
Burrows structures his writing predictably enough, running through the life of Terry Pratchett chronologically, from his working-class upbringing; his career in journalism; the progression in popularity of his novels; his knighthood all the way up to his untimely death from Alzheimer’s. However, this is where an affiliation to any standard biography ends.
It is immediately apparent that Marc Burrows is an avid Terry Pratchett fan, even without reading his foreword, due to the inclusion of footnotes: a writing style which is synonymous with Pratchett. This allows Burrows, as it did with Pratchett, to provide little notes and details which cannot be in the main text without limiting the reading experience. It also allows both authors to inject a large amount of humour into their writing.
It should also be mentioned that no book has gripped me from the introduction in a long time, although I am fairly sure no other book would use the word “crotch” before we even reach Chapter One!
‘The Magic of Terry Pratchett’ is a clever, well-informed biography which perfectly encompasses the humour of the Discworld creator whilst educating the reader of his journey to becoming the icon that he is today. I have no doubt that this has been a labour of love for Marc Burrows: when the kindle says you have 20 minutes reading time left and you have reached the bibliography, you know that a whole lot of research has been done!
Sir Terry also had the tendency to embellish his stories and this is a factor Burrows does not try to hide; highlighting when facts don't quite add up and almost analysing the situation to try and discern the truth. This was such a refreshing approach to a biography: the wool is not pulled over the eyes of the reader, nor the subject blindly believed for convenience.
It is important to note that this book transgresses the existence of Discworld and “the business with the elephant” and encompasses all of Sir Terry’s work: from short stories in the local paper to his TV documentary on assisted death.
The reader will also learn of the involvement of Rhianna Pratchett in her father’s work and discover that the “man in the hat” was not always the easiest man to work with.
I am going to need at least 3 copies upon release- can we preorder?
As a 32 year old female, mother and accountant you may be forgiven for expecting my book reviews to be based around chick-lit or classical novels and, although it is the case that I own several very well-read copies of Pride & Prejudice, I am wholly a child of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Terry Pratchett novels sit alongside George RR Martin, Terry Brooks, David Eddings and Ursula Le Guin in my house; I owned and loved Discworld computer games and probably know every word to the film Labyrinth.
It could therefore be said that I would find Marc Burrow’s biography fascinating regardless: however, I am ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I knew very little about the life of the author whose books I admire so much.
Burrows structures his writing predictably enough, running through the life of Terry Pratchett chronologically, from his working-class upbringing; his career in journalism; the progression in popularity of his novels; his knighthood all the way up to his untimely death from Alzheimer’s. However, this is where an affiliation to any standard biography ends.
It is immediately apparent that Marc Burrows is an avid Terry Pratchett fan, even without reading his foreword, due to the inclusion of footnotes: a writing style which is synonymous with Pratchett. This allows Burrows, as it did with Pratchett, to provide little notes and details which cannot be in the main text without limiting the reading experience. It also allows both authors to inject a large amount of humour into their writing.
It should also be mentioned that no book has gripped me from the introduction in a long time, although I am fairly sure no other book would use the word “crotch” before we even reach Chapter One!
‘The Magic of Terry Pratchett’ is a clever, well-informed biography which perfectly encompasses the humour of the Discworld creator whilst educating the reader of his journey to becoming the icon that he is today. I have no doubt that this has been a labour of love for Marc Burrows: when the kindle says you have 20 minutes reading time left and you have reached the bibliography, you know that a whole lot of research has been done!
Sir Terry also had the tendency to embellish his stories and this is a factor Burrows does not try to hide; highlighting when facts don't quite add up and almost analysing the situation to try and discern the truth. This was such a refreshing approach to a biography: the wool is not pulled over the eyes of the reader, nor the subject blindly believed for convenience.
It is important to note that this book transgresses the existence of Discworld and “the business with the elephant” and encompasses all of Sir Terry’s work: from short stories in the local paper to his TV documentary on assisted death.
The reader will also learn of the involvement of Rhianna Pratchett in her father’s work and discover that the “man in the hat” was not always the easiest man to work with.
I am going to need at least 3 copies upon release- can we preorder?
Fiete Cars
Education and Games
App
In Fiete Cars the children are the master builders. In this app kids can create their own car game....
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 5ive Girls (2006) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 5ive Girls starts when one of the student of Father Drake’s (Perlman) school it taken by an evil force leaving only blood stained classroom. With the school closed down on the outside we still see Father Drake trying to help troubled girls with his newest class being Alex (Miller), Mara (Madley), Cecilia (Vnesa), Leah (Mamabolo) and Connie (Quintas).
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020 (Updated Feb 16, 2020)
Frenetic action in murky water - baffling (2 more)
Scientific inconsistencies
Waterlogged Alien wannabe
Soggy and forgettable
I had a sinking feeling (excuse the pun) about this movie from the word go. It's a lazy approach to 'mansplain' the whole set up for the movie through digital news posts during the main titles. It feels more patronising to the audience than having main titles and then a 'Star Wars-style' synopsis.
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Chat Love in Books
Oct 2, 2020
I wanted to read this book immediately after reading the synopsis, and I was honoured when the author, Justine Faeth, approached me and sent me an ebook copy in exchange for an honest review.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Hart Broken (Cale & Mickey #1) in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Contemporary
Goodreads Rating: 4.75/5 stars
My rating: 4/5 stars
Mickey Hart doesn’t do one-night stands. Until she wakes up in a luxury penthouse. With nothing but a t-shirt. And no idea who it belongs to.
Enter Cale Windermere. Driven. Ambitious. Successful. And so gorgeous he could’ve walked straight out of a romance novel…
Except he can’t walk. Not that it ever stops him from getting what he wants. And he wants Mickey. Even if she’s keeping secrets from him.
This book…
Where do I even begin? It has a strong start and it stays strong. Mickey is awkward and funny. She starts out at the perfect chick lit character.
“Cale Windermere,” he said, sticking out his hand.
“C-Cale?”
“Yeah. Like the leafy green, just take off the K and replace with a C.”
Oh. My. God.
“And you are?”
“Uh…”
Cale raised an eyebrow, chuckling lightly.
Say something, Mickey.
“I-l’m, uh…”
Something intelligent. And preferably English.
With the help of a mental slap, Mickey willed herself to take his hand and shake it, a bit too eagerly. “I-I’m Mickey.”
It’s difficult not to like her. I like even more that she doesn’t really care Cale’s in a wheelchair and she doesn’t do anything stupid and awkward like kneel down so they’re eye level or act as if he’s an invalid. Even though she does notice the wheelchair, she is easily distracted by how attractive he is.
Carefully taking a sip, Mickey did a once over of the man sitting in front of her. Cale’s shirt was just fitted enough to show off the remarkably solid build of his upper torso. She jotted down a mental list of all his attractive attributes thus far.
Thick, unruly chocolate locks. Gorgeous emerald eyes. Award-winning smile.
And he had a long list of greats.
Great back. Great shoulders. Great chest. Great arms.
Really great arms.
She ran her nails over the hot ceramic.
You’d never think that something was wrong with him.
She wondered if he had great abs too.
So I love Mickey. And the farther I got into the book, the more complex she became. I found myself really wanting to know why she was so commitment shy and found it difficult to sleep in the same bed as someone.
I love Cale a lot too, although not as much as Mickey. He’s charismatic, sexy, and very much in love with Mickey. He’s everything you’d expect in a love interest. So much so, he’s a bit of a cliche. Just because he can’t walk doesn’t mean he’s not a stereotypical billionaire love interest.
Cale gets self-conscious about his disability at times, and he has a lot of emotional baggage from that and his ex wife. But he’s pretty easy to get, and I don’t feel the same complexity with him I do with Mickey. That being said, he does have flaws, and I love that. He gets mad at Mickey and fed up with her unwillingness to share.
“Essentially, you’re more than happy to fuck my brains out but you won’t stay by my side. How am I doing so far, Mickey?”
“Cale…”
“So I understand, okay? Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it understanding,” he corrected himself wryly. “But I get it. I get that you need your space. It didn’t take a fucking genius to figure that one out. And I’ve tried my best to respect that…”
True.
“And be patient…”
True.
“And understanding.”
All painfully true.
He suddenly looked exhausted. And he suddenly sounded exhausted, “But Jesus, Mickey.” Shaking his head slowly, Cale blew the hair out of his eyes and sighed, “You need to throw a guy a bone eventually.”
Gotta love that he’s human and isn’t an eternal patience machine. So Cale’s all right. However, the chapters from his point of view are really weird.
They’re short, in first person, and melodramatic. A lot of the time the reader doesn’t get to see where he is or what he’s doing. Instead, they just hear his internal thoughts about Mickey. That’s it. And they’re melodramatic and repetitive, especially in the beginning of the book. The farther into the book, the more fleshed out the chapters get. But a full star is knocked off for those earlier chapters.
Despite that, I definitely recommend reading this book. It’s darker than most contemporary romances, which is very refreshing, but it has plenty of light and hilarious moments. Definitely worth the read.
If you liked this review, or know someone who might like Hart Broken, then I’d definitely appreciate it if you shared this post with your friends. Thank you, and have a great day!
Goodreads Rating: 4.75/5 stars
My rating: 4/5 stars
Mickey Hart doesn’t do one-night stands. Until she wakes up in a luxury penthouse. With nothing but a t-shirt. And no idea who it belongs to.
Enter Cale Windermere. Driven. Ambitious. Successful. And so gorgeous he could’ve walked straight out of a romance novel…
Except he can’t walk. Not that it ever stops him from getting what he wants. And he wants Mickey. Even if she’s keeping secrets from him.
This book…
Where do I even begin? It has a strong start and it stays strong. Mickey is awkward and funny. She starts out at the perfect chick lit character.
“Cale Windermere,” he said, sticking out his hand.
“C-Cale?”
“Yeah. Like the leafy green, just take off the K and replace with a C.”
Oh. My. God.
“And you are?”
“Uh…”
Cale raised an eyebrow, chuckling lightly.
Say something, Mickey.
“I-l’m, uh…”
Something intelligent. And preferably English.
With the help of a mental slap, Mickey willed herself to take his hand and shake it, a bit too eagerly. “I-I’m Mickey.”
It’s difficult not to like her. I like even more that she doesn’t really care Cale’s in a wheelchair and she doesn’t do anything stupid and awkward like kneel down so they’re eye level or act as if he’s an invalid. Even though she does notice the wheelchair, she is easily distracted by how attractive he is.
Carefully taking a sip, Mickey did a once over of the man sitting in front of her. Cale’s shirt was just fitted enough to show off the remarkably solid build of his upper torso. She jotted down a mental list of all his attractive attributes thus far.
Thick, unruly chocolate locks. Gorgeous emerald eyes. Award-winning smile.
And he had a long list of greats.
Great back. Great shoulders. Great chest. Great arms.
Really great arms.
She ran her nails over the hot ceramic.
You’d never think that something was wrong with him.
She wondered if he had great abs too.
So I love Mickey. And the farther I got into the book, the more complex she became. I found myself really wanting to know why she was so commitment shy and found it difficult to sleep in the same bed as someone.
I love Cale a lot too, although not as much as Mickey. He’s charismatic, sexy, and very much in love with Mickey. He’s everything you’d expect in a love interest. So much so, he’s a bit of a cliche. Just because he can’t walk doesn’t mean he’s not a stereotypical billionaire love interest.
Cale gets self-conscious about his disability at times, and he has a lot of emotional baggage from that and his ex wife. But he’s pretty easy to get, and I don’t feel the same complexity with him I do with Mickey. That being said, he does have flaws, and I love that. He gets mad at Mickey and fed up with her unwillingness to share.
“Essentially, you’re more than happy to fuck my brains out but you won’t stay by my side. How am I doing so far, Mickey?”
“Cale…”
“So I understand, okay? Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it understanding,” he corrected himself wryly. “But I get it. I get that you need your space. It didn’t take a fucking genius to figure that one out. And I’ve tried my best to respect that…”
True.
“And be patient…”
True.
“And understanding.”
All painfully true.
He suddenly looked exhausted. And he suddenly sounded exhausted, “But Jesus, Mickey.” Shaking his head slowly, Cale blew the hair out of his eyes and sighed, “You need to throw a guy a bone eventually.”
Gotta love that he’s human and isn’t an eternal patience machine. So Cale’s all right. However, the chapters from his point of view are really weird.
They’re short, in first person, and melodramatic. A lot of the time the reader doesn’t get to see where he is or what he’s doing. Instead, they just hear his internal thoughts about Mickey. That’s it. And they’re melodramatic and repetitive, especially in the beginning of the book. The farther into the book, the more fleshed out the chapters get. But a full star is knocked off for those earlier chapters.
Despite that, I definitely recommend reading this book. It’s darker than most contemporary romances, which is very refreshing, but it has plenty of light and hilarious moments. Definitely worth the read.
If you liked this review, or know someone who might like Hart Broken, then I’d definitely appreciate it if you shared this post with your friends. Thank you, and have a great day!
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Baby Doll in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Firstly Id like to thank Netgalley and Random House UK, Cornerstone for the opportunity to read this book.
<b><i>BABY DOLL is the most tense thriller you will read this year.</b></i> no it isnt.
<b>1.5 stars</b>
I was looking forward to giving this a read, it sounded like an exciting thriller; woman escapes from her captor and now shes trying to rebuild her life and future. But it doesnt really start out that way everything kind of falls into place for Lily in the first few pages and so you think, is this going to be as exciting as I first hoped? Well the answer to that is no, its not.
Its all very over the top. <i>Every single thing</i> Abby & Lily do is grossly OTT. I mean I dont personally know how I, or my family would react if something like this happened but it all seems very overplayed, cliche and cheesy.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/MGmnFOZRFRo4w/giphy.gif"; width="370" height="220" alt="yaaaawn"/>
Its also a bit ridiculous, not the kidnapping and abuse, of course <b>thats</b> not, but everything else is. The town seems raving mad, no wonder no one noticed a psychopath in their midst! I mean for one, this town needs to sort out its police force, theyre <b>so</b> unprofessional! <spoiler>Sleeping around and beating people to a pulp. Stupid. <b>PLUS</b> Why were they unable to get Abby off of Rick when she was stabbing him? It felt like they were all just standing around and watching her until they thought, OK thatll do now.</spoiler>
I dont think Overton did a particularly good job at portraying the characters. They all seemed very wooden and lifeless. I found them all to be extremely childish, shallow and very selfish and so couldnt connect with any of them. They also felt completely fake, like the things they did and said were not something you could imagine a real person doing or saying. We were supposed to empathise with Lily but it just wasnt possible for me, she was cold and boring and I think the multiple POVs was a bad call on Overtons part because it means we cant spend that time getting to know the character and instead have to put up with everyone else's junk <i>(cough cough the mother's affair cough cough)</i> that we dont care about, which disconnects us entirely from the story. I would go so far as to say I felt this story was more about idiotic Abby than it was about boring ol Lily. We also couldnt attach to Lily because this book moved so ridiculously fast! I couldnt keep up, whats the rush?
I dont think this was very well written either, it all seemed very rushed. Also, why was Eve called Eve one minute and Mom the next? And why couldnt Abby call Mr Hanson by his actual name? We get it, he was your teacher, but youre an adult now, with a kid and this man ruined your sister's life, would you really be calling him Mr Hanson all the time. It was like I was reading the POV of a 6 year old.
I admit the twist was quite a shock and I hadnt seen <i>that</i> particular ending coming about, but I still thought it was a bit silly, hence the extra half a star I gave the book. <spoiler>Can we please note that this (the murder) is like the 5th time in the book when Abby does something for Lily but really shes just being selfish and doing it for herself because she cant get a fucking grip.</spoiler>
Too "family drama" for me. I wanted a fast paced thriller not some sappy, emotional love story. This book was supposed to focus on the broken Lily rebuilding her life with her loving family surrounding her, but instead turned into a ridiculous love triangle story that I couldnt care less about. Give me more of Ricks POV if you must, <b>anything to get me away from twin sisters fighting over one stupid man.</b> Abby was so fucking annoying when it came to Wes, she was so desperately needy for him all the while putting on a stupid I-dont-need-you front. Deal with it Abby, you love him and he loves you, <b>just fucking deal with it.</b>
In the end I skipped the last 10 pages or so, I was done with this book when I was 20% the way through Maybe this would be a good book for people who are into chick-lit/women's fiction - whatever that means, but its not my cup of tea.
<b><i>BABY DOLL is the most tense thriller you will read this year.</b></i> no it isnt.
<b>1.5 stars</b>
I was looking forward to giving this a read, it sounded like an exciting thriller; woman escapes from her captor and now shes trying to rebuild her life and future. But it doesnt really start out that way everything kind of falls into place for Lily in the first few pages and so you think, is this going to be as exciting as I first hoped? Well the answer to that is no, its not.
Its all very over the top. <i>Every single thing</i> Abby & Lily do is grossly OTT. I mean I dont personally know how I, or my family would react if something like this happened but it all seems very overplayed, cliche and cheesy.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/MGmnFOZRFRo4w/giphy.gif"; width="370" height="220" alt="yaaaawn"/>
Its also a bit ridiculous, not the kidnapping and abuse, of course <b>thats</b> not, but everything else is. The town seems raving mad, no wonder no one noticed a psychopath in their midst! I mean for one, this town needs to sort out its police force, theyre <b>so</b> unprofessional! <spoiler>Sleeping around and beating people to a pulp. Stupid. <b>PLUS</b> Why were they unable to get Abby off of Rick when she was stabbing him? It felt like they were all just standing around and watching her until they thought, OK thatll do now.</spoiler>
I dont think Overton did a particularly good job at portraying the characters. They all seemed very wooden and lifeless. I found them all to be extremely childish, shallow and very selfish and so couldnt connect with any of them. They also felt completely fake, like the things they did and said were not something you could imagine a real person doing or saying. We were supposed to empathise with Lily but it just wasnt possible for me, she was cold and boring and I think the multiple POVs was a bad call on Overtons part because it means we cant spend that time getting to know the character and instead have to put up with everyone else's junk <i>(cough cough the mother's affair cough cough)</i> that we dont care about, which disconnects us entirely from the story. I would go so far as to say I felt this story was more about idiotic Abby than it was about boring ol Lily. We also couldnt attach to Lily because this book moved so ridiculously fast! I couldnt keep up, whats the rush?
I dont think this was very well written either, it all seemed very rushed. Also, why was Eve called Eve one minute and Mom the next? And why couldnt Abby call Mr Hanson by his actual name? We get it, he was your teacher, but youre an adult now, with a kid and this man ruined your sister's life, would you really be calling him Mr Hanson all the time. It was like I was reading the POV of a 6 year old.
I admit the twist was quite a shock and I hadnt seen <i>that</i> particular ending coming about, but I still thought it was a bit silly, hence the extra half a star I gave the book. <spoiler>Can we please note that this (the murder) is like the 5th time in the book when Abby does something for Lily but really shes just being selfish and doing it for herself because she cant get a fucking grip.</spoiler>
Too "family drama" for me. I wanted a fast paced thriller not some sappy, emotional love story. This book was supposed to focus on the broken Lily rebuilding her life with her loving family surrounding her, but instead turned into a ridiculous love triangle story that I couldnt care less about. Give me more of Ricks POV if you must, <b>anything to get me away from twin sisters fighting over one stupid man.</b> Abby was so fucking annoying when it came to Wes, she was so desperately needy for him all the while putting on a stupid I-dont-need-you front. Deal with it Abby, you love him and he loves you, <b>just fucking deal with it.</b>
In the end I skipped the last 10 pages or so, I was done with this book when I was 20% the way through Maybe this would be a good book for people who are into chick-lit/women's fiction - whatever that means, but its not my cup of tea.
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Better then it looks.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been years since I’ve seen the original 1995 Jumanji, but from what I can remember as a 5-10 year old (not sure when I got around to owning the VHS) I enjoyed it. Robin Williams was on fire in the 90’s and turned in another comparable performance in this fun action adventure film. This new incarnation of the Jumanji tale changes direction a bit. For one it swaps the outdated board game that contains an entire jungle world inside it, for a more cultural relevant video game console that contains an entire jungle world inside it. I’m actually surprised they didn't use an iPad. 2017’s Jumanji also adds in a body swapping element. The teens that enter the game suddenly become adult video game characters. Complete with skills and weakness of varying degrees of usefulness.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.