Search
Search results
Dana (24 KP) rated The Tempest in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I had to read this play for my Shakespeare class in college and it was the first time I had ever read it.
This was an interesting play, and I'm not sure where it will fit on my scale for my favorite Shakespearean plays. While the plot was pretty straightforward, I do not know how I necessarily felt about the characters themselves. This being Shakespeare's final play, I feel like he wanted to pull in some aspects from his previous plays to draw the crowds in one last time.
I definitely see Shakespeare in Prospero. Both men are known for their art, Prospero's being magic and Shakespeare's being his writings, and in the end, both will give up those arts to be with their families. While it cannot be proved, Shakespeare did die fairly soon after his career ended, making yet another connection where possibly his "every third thought would be of the grave" just as Prospero foretold. And of course, Prospero's final soliloquy is said to be Shakespeare's swan song, his final curtain call.
Miranda can be seen as a voice for the audience a lot throughout the play. She is the reason we get the backstory about why Prospero is doing what he is doing, she voices concerns that the audiences may all be thinking. I think this was intentional because in most of the Shakespearean plays, there is at least one character who stands in for the audience.
Ariel, not going to lie, I thought he was a female character, though I found out by reading more, and watching a filmed production of it, that he is often portrayed as a male. I do, however, want to see what a female could do with this character. Especially since he is such a pivotal character to the plot line being in most, if not all, scenes in some way or another. Without Ariel, the story would not have been able to happen.
Caliban is weird. I understand why he hates Prospero and Miranda so much, but that doesn't excuse his actions both in the actual play and before it in the history sections.
I do not quite know what to classify this play as. It is definitely not one of the tragedies (mainly because it doesn't have a character name in the title) but it also isn't really a comedy. Would it be a mystical play? I don't really know. If you do, please, message me or comment on the post, because I am curious.
This play is often referenced in literature and in pop culture, but I never fully understood what they meant, so it was fun to be able to finally get what people were talking about. That being said, I do not think this is one of his most popular plays. Yes, it was his last, but I have not seen it come up as much in my studies as, let's say, Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Overall, I enjoyed the play, but it definitely isn't my favorite. That spot still goes to Macbeth.
This was an interesting play, and I'm not sure where it will fit on my scale for my favorite Shakespearean plays. While the plot was pretty straightforward, I do not know how I necessarily felt about the characters themselves. This being Shakespeare's final play, I feel like he wanted to pull in some aspects from his previous plays to draw the crowds in one last time.
I definitely see Shakespeare in Prospero. Both men are known for their art, Prospero's being magic and Shakespeare's being his writings, and in the end, both will give up those arts to be with their families. While it cannot be proved, Shakespeare did die fairly soon after his career ended, making yet another connection where possibly his "every third thought would be of the grave" just as Prospero foretold. And of course, Prospero's final soliloquy is said to be Shakespeare's swan song, his final curtain call.
Miranda can be seen as a voice for the audience a lot throughout the play. She is the reason we get the backstory about why Prospero is doing what he is doing, she voices concerns that the audiences may all be thinking. I think this was intentional because in most of the Shakespearean plays, there is at least one character who stands in for the audience.
Ariel, not going to lie, I thought he was a female character, though I found out by reading more, and watching a filmed production of it, that he is often portrayed as a male. I do, however, want to see what a female could do with this character. Especially since he is such a pivotal character to the plot line being in most, if not all, scenes in some way or another. Without Ariel, the story would not have been able to happen.
Caliban is weird. I understand why he hates Prospero and Miranda so much, but that doesn't excuse his actions both in the actual play and before it in the history sections.
I do not quite know what to classify this play as. It is definitely not one of the tragedies (mainly because it doesn't have a character name in the title) but it also isn't really a comedy. Would it be a mystical play? I don't really know. If you do, please, message me or comment on the post, because I am curious.
This play is often referenced in literature and in pop culture, but I never fully understood what they meant, so it was fun to be able to finally get what people were talking about. That being said, I do not think this is one of his most popular plays. Yes, it was his last, but I have not seen it come up as much in my studies as, let's say, Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Overall, I enjoyed the play, but it definitely isn't my favorite. That spot still goes to Macbeth.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated This Idea Must Die in Books
Aug 14, 2018
Book Review by Cari Mayhew.
There’s nothing like reading a popular science book to make you feel more worldly wise! The Idea Must Die is a compilation of over 150 separate articles, by different contributors, arguing that certain scientific concepts are blocking progress and should be put to rest.
Its scope is very broad - at first I felt the book was concentrating on physics, but it later went on to include psychology, linguistics, genetics, criminology, economics and computer science. The title of each article comes from the concept that it is argued should be put to rest.
There were plenty of articles I found interesting and learnt from, including: - “Long-term memory is immutable”, "One genome per individual", “Economic growth”, "Intelligence as property", "Continuity of time", Knowing is half the battle" and "Information overload", “Essentialism”, "Malthuanism" (which is the idea that population will outstrip food supply).
For the majority of the articles I agreed that the theory should be put to rest, and plenty that I thought it was good to see included. These included topics such as: race, nurture vs nature, reductionism. Cancer research theories were also addressed.
There were several topics I was surprised to see argued against, such as evidence-based medicine, scientific method, evolution, carbon footprint, string theory, culture, science being self-correcting.
It was refreshing to see "We are stone age thinkers" but I was disappointed to see the title "Languages condition worldviews". It was also a shame to see AI there, along with robot companions. Ideas in some chapters were disconcerting, claiming there's no self, no cognitive agency, and no free will.
There was a potentially useful article entitled "Scientific knowledge structured as literature" suggesting how publication could move to a new updated method.
With each article ranging in length from a mere 1 to 7 pages, it is an incredibly easy book to dip in and out of, or to fit around a busy week. At times there is a flow between one chapter and the next, but not always. Several of the articles proffer conflicting viewpoints, prompting the reader to reflect and wonder.
Some articles are more-well written than others, and similarly some arguments are more strongly put forward. Usually only one argument is made per article, but at times there were several. I believe some of the articles were chosen for their brevity, which is a shame because some of the articles could use a stronger argument. Some articles are hard to get your head around. The language is not always accessible and often presumes reader already has some knowledge of the subject. Although intriguing to begin with, with so many articles it began to feel dry and laborious at about 60% through. Some articles I deliberately skipped, others I attempted but found impenetrable.
It’s a refreshing read if you haven’t picked a science book in some time and it’s definitely a thought-provoking read if you feel confident that you can get to grips with the material.
For more of my reviews, check out www.bookblogbycari.com
There’s nothing like reading a popular science book to make you feel more worldly wise! The Idea Must Die is a compilation of over 150 separate articles, by different contributors, arguing that certain scientific concepts are blocking progress and should be put to rest.
Its scope is very broad - at first I felt the book was concentrating on physics, but it later went on to include psychology, linguistics, genetics, criminology, economics and computer science. The title of each article comes from the concept that it is argued should be put to rest.
There were plenty of articles I found interesting and learnt from, including: - “Long-term memory is immutable”, "One genome per individual", “Economic growth”, "Intelligence as property", "Continuity of time", Knowing is half the battle" and "Information overload", “Essentialism”, "Malthuanism" (which is the idea that population will outstrip food supply).
For the majority of the articles I agreed that the theory should be put to rest, and plenty that I thought it was good to see included. These included topics such as: race, nurture vs nature, reductionism. Cancer research theories were also addressed.
There were several topics I was surprised to see argued against, such as evidence-based medicine, scientific method, evolution, carbon footprint, string theory, culture, science being self-correcting.
It was refreshing to see "We are stone age thinkers" but I was disappointed to see the title "Languages condition worldviews". It was also a shame to see AI there, along with robot companions. Ideas in some chapters were disconcerting, claiming there's no self, no cognitive agency, and no free will.
There was a potentially useful article entitled "Scientific knowledge structured as literature" suggesting how publication could move to a new updated method.
With each article ranging in length from a mere 1 to 7 pages, it is an incredibly easy book to dip in and out of, or to fit around a busy week. At times there is a flow between one chapter and the next, but not always. Several of the articles proffer conflicting viewpoints, prompting the reader to reflect and wonder.
Some articles are more-well written than others, and similarly some arguments are more strongly put forward. Usually only one argument is made per article, but at times there were several. I believe some of the articles were chosen for their brevity, which is a shame because some of the articles could use a stronger argument. Some articles are hard to get your head around. The language is not always accessible and often presumes reader already has some knowledge of the subject. Although intriguing to begin with, with so many articles it began to feel dry and laborious at about 60% through. Some articles I deliberately skipped, others I attempted but found impenetrable.
It’s a refreshing read if you haven’t picked a science book in some time and it’s definitely a thought-provoking read if you feel confident that you can get to grips with the material.
For more of my reviews, check out www.bookblogbycari.com
Jessica - Where the Book Ends (15 KP) rated Love, Hate, and Other Filters in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Love Hate & Other Filters is a book that I was really looking forward to read, it got great hype and the fact that Ahmed is a debut author was just the icing on the cake for me. I loved the premise of the story and learning more about Indian culture through the characters in this book. Ahmed definitely delivered in that area. Her writing was descriptive and her exploration of feelings was on point. It was a quick moving story that left me turning the pages well into the night. I fell in love with Maya and Phil. I especially loved Violet, she has some real MC potential but Ahmed did a great job of not letting her take over the story. I’d love to see a companion book with Violet as the MC, I digress.
The story of Maya and Phil was a cute love story centered in the midst of something so much greater. Their story is derailed by a terrorist attack that hits close to home for Maya and as a result everything she wanted for herself, for her life is flipped upside down. See, the supposed terrorist shares her last name, and as a result Maya and her family have to deal with the insecurities and the intolerance of the people in their community. Islamophobia is a growing problem in our world, and this book is just the tip of the iceberg. The story was haunting and emotional. I personally can’t believe that people treat other people the way they do in this book. It makes me weep for humanity.
I had two problems with this book, which is why I only gave it a 4 star rating… I know Maya is 17 and she would have been just a baby when September 11th happened; however, I would have thought that Islamophobia would have been part of her life from the word go. I’m not saying that it should be that way or that I wish that on anyone because I would never do that. But, I think it’s something that has been so prevalent in our society since September 11th that I find it hard to swallow that she doesn’t mention encountering Islamophobia prior to the terrorist attack when she’s 17. Not only that but her parents don’t mention it either, which I find hard to believe.
The other problem I have with this book is the ending… To be honest it felt rushed to me. I would have loved to see the way it played out in more detail. I would also have preferred the epilogue to flash a little farther into the future. But, that’s just my opinion.
Overall, Ahmed has a great ability to manipulate the written word and weave together a story that will embed itself in your heart. I highly recommend this book, it’s a quick read that is both eye opening and a reminder of what people in this country and world are dealing with. I will gladly pick up any book that Ahmed writes in the future, and I encourage you to pick up this one.
The story of Maya and Phil was a cute love story centered in the midst of something so much greater. Their story is derailed by a terrorist attack that hits close to home for Maya and as a result everything she wanted for herself, for her life is flipped upside down. See, the supposed terrorist shares her last name, and as a result Maya and her family have to deal with the insecurities and the intolerance of the people in their community. Islamophobia is a growing problem in our world, and this book is just the tip of the iceberg. The story was haunting and emotional. I personally can’t believe that people treat other people the way they do in this book. It makes me weep for humanity.
I had two problems with this book, which is why I only gave it a 4 star rating… I know Maya is 17 and she would have been just a baby when September 11th happened; however, I would have thought that Islamophobia would have been part of her life from the word go. I’m not saying that it should be that way or that I wish that on anyone because I would never do that. But, I think it’s something that has been so prevalent in our society since September 11th that I find it hard to swallow that she doesn’t mention encountering Islamophobia prior to the terrorist attack when she’s 17. Not only that but her parents don’t mention it either, which I find hard to believe.
The other problem I have with this book is the ending… To be honest it felt rushed to me. I would have loved to see the way it played out in more detail. I would also have preferred the epilogue to flash a little farther into the future. But, that’s just my opinion.
Overall, Ahmed has a great ability to manipulate the written word and weave together a story that will embed itself in your heart. I highly recommend this book, it’s a quick read that is both eye opening and a reminder of what people in this country and world are dealing with. I will gladly pick up any book that Ahmed writes in the future, and I encourage you to pick up this one.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Monsters vs. Aliens (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Ushering in what they hope will be a bold new era in 3D movie making, Dreamworks has set a very high standard with “Monsters Vs Aliens”. By combining science fiction and monster films, pop culture references, a strong cast, and cutting edge 3D technology, the film is likely to score big with audiences of all ages.
The story involves a bride to be named Susan (Reese Witherspoon), who is struck by a meteor shortly before her nuptials to local anchorman Derek (Paul Rudd). Before she can say “I do” Susan has an amazing growth spurt that soon has her towering over the church and eventually captured and subdued by a cadre of soldiers.
Susan is targeted as a monster by the government and awakens in a strange cell with fellow detainees B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr. Cockroach PHD (Hugh Laurie), and Insectasaurus. While shocked and horrified to be in the company of monsters, Susan remains focused on getting back to normal and marrying Derek.
At the same time, an alien probe has arrived on earth and after a first contact effort by President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert), goes very wrong, the military soon realizes they are overmatched, requiring drastic efforts to save the planet.Enter General W.R. Monger, (Kiefer Sutherland), who reveals his captive monsters to the President and his staff with the idea that the only way to save the earth is to turn the monsters loose on the alien threat.
With a promise of freedom, the monsters and Susan (now dubbed Ginormica) seek to save San Francisco from the aliens. However, a greater threat is facing the earth from the alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), who has designs on Earth and the power Susan possesses, and will stop at nothing to get it. What ensues is a funny adventure that thanks to the stunning 3D visuals is one of the more enjoyable family films in years.
The amazing 3D effects truly allow for the audience to become immersed in the film rather than just occasionally entertained with a few simple gimmicks. The film has plenty to offer children, but parents should note that the film is PG rated due to some clever quips designed for older viewers.The nearly two hour film moves at a brisk pace, ensuring the monsters do not outstay their welcome, but it may still be a bit long for very young viewers. There are dimensions of the characters that I hope get expanded upon in future films, but I do understand that with such lavish visuals, action, not so much character development, takes centerstage, and the film certainly delivers adventure in spades.
The animation is first rate, as is the great ensemble cast, all of which combine to make “Monsters Vs Aliens” a fun viewing experience for the entire family, and a grand new direction for animation.While viewers wishing to see the film in 3D can expect to pay a higher ticket price, I strongly recommend the 3D version to truly enjoy the film and the breathtaking achievements in animation..
The story involves a bride to be named Susan (Reese Witherspoon), who is struck by a meteor shortly before her nuptials to local anchorman Derek (Paul Rudd). Before she can say “I do” Susan has an amazing growth spurt that soon has her towering over the church and eventually captured and subdued by a cadre of soldiers.
Susan is targeted as a monster by the government and awakens in a strange cell with fellow detainees B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr. Cockroach PHD (Hugh Laurie), and Insectasaurus. While shocked and horrified to be in the company of monsters, Susan remains focused on getting back to normal and marrying Derek.
At the same time, an alien probe has arrived on earth and after a first contact effort by President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert), goes very wrong, the military soon realizes they are overmatched, requiring drastic efforts to save the planet.Enter General W.R. Monger, (Kiefer Sutherland), who reveals his captive monsters to the President and his staff with the idea that the only way to save the earth is to turn the monsters loose on the alien threat.
With a promise of freedom, the monsters and Susan (now dubbed Ginormica) seek to save San Francisco from the aliens. However, a greater threat is facing the earth from the alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), who has designs on Earth and the power Susan possesses, and will stop at nothing to get it. What ensues is a funny adventure that thanks to the stunning 3D visuals is one of the more enjoyable family films in years.
The amazing 3D effects truly allow for the audience to become immersed in the film rather than just occasionally entertained with a few simple gimmicks. The film has plenty to offer children, but parents should note that the film is PG rated due to some clever quips designed for older viewers.The nearly two hour film moves at a brisk pace, ensuring the monsters do not outstay their welcome, but it may still be a bit long for very young viewers. There are dimensions of the characters that I hope get expanded upon in future films, but I do understand that with such lavish visuals, action, not so much character development, takes centerstage, and the film certainly delivers adventure in spades.
The animation is first rate, as is the great ensemble cast, all of which combine to make “Monsters Vs Aliens” a fun viewing experience for the entire family, and a grand new direction for animation.While viewers wishing to see the film in 3D can expect to pay a higher ticket price, I strongly recommend the 3D version to truly enjoy the film and the breathtaking achievements in animation..
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Scary Movie 4 (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anna Faris returns as Cindy Campbell in the fourth installment of the popular “Scary Movie” franchise and your favorite horror films will never be the same.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Due to its ensemble cast, gorgeous aesthetics and whodunit storyline, it’s safe to say that I had high expectations for Knives Out.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Vampires Suck (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Vampires suck – but does the movie? We open on the San Salvatore Festival with the angsty Becca watching her beau, Edward Sullen, disrobe and expose his sparkly secrets- he’s a vampire! Cue the “True Blood- 40oz” toting, Mono-fang vampire to take Edward out….wait, we have to get the rest of the story! What follows is a parody of the first two movies of the Twilight Saga. Most of the characters analogous to the spoof’s target are introduced in the first 30 minutes; few of them are actually seen again throughout the movie.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Abominable Snowman (1957) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019 (Updated Oct 24, 2019)
Due to its ensemble cast, gorgeous aesthetics and whodunit storyline, it’s safe to say that I had high expectations for Knives Out.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Clockwork Orange in Books
Nov 11, 2019
Grab a moloko or hot chai and peet it with your rot while you viddy my malenky review with your glazzies, real horrorshow.
Welcome to the world of Alex, a 15 year old boy living in some unspecified country in an unspecified future time. What Alex enjoys is classical music and ultraviolence. Every night he and his gang terrorise the streets looking for any kind of criminal activity, the more violent the better. They steal, burgle, assault and rape, all for fun.
When Alex is caught he is put in prison and then rehabilitated using an experimental procedure. But what effect will this have on Alex? And will it produce the desired results of preventing the youth turning every night into a time of danger for all.
The first thing any reader notices about the book is that, told from Alex's point of view, he uses street slang throughout. This makes it clear that the young have their own culture and are quite separate from the adults in terms of outlook and thinking. It also makes the reading quite immersive, like learning a foreign language particularly as only a very few of the words are ever explained and must be learned from context. This makes for a steep learning curve at the start of the book but it is worth the effort. The use of slang terms for the violent acts also helps to soften them a little - clearly what Alex does is horrendous but as it is described using these terms it is perhaps not so graphic as it would be otherwise.
Like critics of the film, it would be unfair to focus purely on the violence. The book is divided neatly into three parts. In the first we follow Alex as he perpetrates a number of terrible crimes. The second part describes his experiences in prison and is rehabilitation. The third what happens when he returns to society.
Burgess is clearly trying to make a number of points about individuality and state control of its citizens, and a fairly heavy handed job he makes of it too. But this is a slight volume - the paperback I read ran to a mere 140 pages - so there is little time for subtlety.
I would say the first two sections of the book were the best. The third section suffers a little from being rushed - it would have been better to have more insight into the world of the 'new' Alex - and also of the story being driven by coincidence after coincidence. This really did make the book seem like a sort of dream sequence where previous characters appeared and suddenly took on new meanings. In fact what it reminded me most of was the interrogation sequence in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. This did detract from the story for me but not enough to do much damage to the tale. The ending is particularly strong and positive, in a book full of desperation it strikes the perfect counternote.
For anyone interested in the social side of 'science fiction' this is definitely worth reading. A morality tale for the future.
Rated: Frequent and extreme violence
Welcome to the world of Alex, a 15 year old boy living in some unspecified country in an unspecified future time. What Alex enjoys is classical music and ultraviolence. Every night he and his gang terrorise the streets looking for any kind of criminal activity, the more violent the better. They steal, burgle, assault and rape, all for fun.
When Alex is caught he is put in prison and then rehabilitated using an experimental procedure. But what effect will this have on Alex? And will it produce the desired results of preventing the youth turning every night into a time of danger for all.
The first thing any reader notices about the book is that, told from Alex's point of view, he uses street slang throughout. This makes it clear that the young have their own culture and are quite separate from the adults in terms of outlook and thinking. It also makes the reading quite immersive, like learning a foreign language particularly as only a very few of the words are ever explained and must be learned from context. This makes for a steep learning curve at the start of the book but it is worth the effort. The use of slang terms for the violent acts also helps to soften them a little - clearly what Alex does is horrendous but as it is described using these terms it is perhaps not so graphic as it would be otherwise.
Like critics of the film, it would be unfair to focus purely on the violence. The book is divided neatly into three parts. In the first we follow Alex as he perpetrates a number of terrible crimes. The second part describes his experiences in prison and is rehabilitation. The third what happens when he returns to society.
Burgess is clearly trying to make a number of points about individuality and state control of its citizens, and a fairly heavy handed job he makes of it too. But this is a slight volume - the paperback I read ran to a mere 140 pages - so there is little time for subtlety.
I would say the first two sections of the book were the best. The third section suffers a little from being rushed - it would have been better to have more insight into the world of the 'new' Alex - and also of the story being driven by coincidence after coincidence. This really did make the book seem like a sort of dream sequence where previous characters appeared and suddenly took on new meanings. In fact what it reminded me most of was the interrogation sequence in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. This did detract from the story for me but not enough to do much damage to the tale. The ending is particularly strong and positive, in a book full of desperation it strikes the perfect counternote.
For anyone interested in the social side of 'science fiction' this is definitely worth reading. A morality tale for the future.
Rated: Frequent and extreme violence
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Admins (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Glengarry Glen Ross, Clerks, A Few Good Men, The Big Short, Office Space and Waiting, What do these flicks have in common? No matter the genre they fall in they all have great writing, great dialogue and superb execution of both these factors from there core cast. While Admins may be a Low Budget independent movie it has all these key ingredients and deserves your attention.
Since Movies like Clerks and Office Space hit our screens and gave us a real good look into work life culture, well many movies have came and went since that tried to capture that magic but more often than not they fail because they lack the witty dialogue or lead cast delivery. Aaron Goodmiller and Eric Espejo have achieved a rare feat and brought us a movie that holds many similarity’s to the movies they (and we) love but also expertly elaborates becoming not only a love letter to the genre but an excellent reminder that there is still life in this genre yet.
Admins is a day in the life story of Dan and Randy. Dan and Randy are a couple of systems admins at a “government company” and much like your normal average Joe, spend most of there days figuring out how exactly to fill there work time. So yeah that’s pretty much all I can say plot wise other than what follows is a string of interesting, candid, funny as hell conversations (most notably the “Rape Card” conversation) as Dan is trying his damned hardest to better his position in the company and Randy just calls it like he sees it.
For me this flick lives in its performances and I don’t just mean from our two leads. Lets for a second talk about them though Jay Saunders as Dan the put upon employee who has the intelligence and the aspirations of making it, well I thought Saunders nailed this. Playing off him was Doug Henderson as Randy, please please please please someone pick this guy up and take him all the way. Henderson is an absolute scene stealing son of a bitch, his effortless delivery of some fairly complex dialogue makes him a joy to watch. I see a bright future for this guy. Just check out this delivery…
Both the leads are utterly brilliant but I cant take anything away from the supporting cast, Rebecca Wahls and Devon Brookshire in particular shine in there scenes as Vera and Kathy respectively, both playing very strongly off the cocky confident leads.
This recommend couldn’t be any stronger, I want you all to go check this flick out. Aaron Goodmiller has done a fantastic job on directing duties considering he was thrown into it at short notice after writer Eric Espejo had to bow out. Yes it is low budget, but this is a movie that knows where it lives and what its strengths are, complex witty dialogue and a brilliant cast that can deliver. Admins uses those strengths to there fullest and truly is a gem of a movie not to be missed.
So with that in mind here is where you can get a hold of it, and I suggest you do…
Since Movies like Clerks and Office Space hit our screens and gave us a real good look into work life culture, well many movies have came and went since that tried to capture that magic but more often than not they fail because they lack the witty dialogue or lead cast delivery. Aaron Goodmiller and Eric Espejo have achieved a rare feat and brought us a movie that holds many similarity’s to the movies they (and we) love but also expertly elaborates becoming not only a love letter to the genre but an excellent reminder that there is still life in this genre yet.
Admins is a day in the life story of Dan and Randy. Dan and Randy are a couple of systems admins at a “government company” and much like your normal average Joe, spend most of there days figuring out how exactly to fill there work time. So yeah that’s pretty much all I can say plot wise other than what follows is a string of interesting, candid, funny as hell conversations (most notably the “Rape Card” conversation) as Dan is trying his damned hardest to better his position in the company and Randy just calls it like he sees it.
For me this flick lives in its performances and I don’t just mean from our two leads. Lets for a second talk about them though Jay Saunders as Dan the put upon employee who has the intelligence and the aspirations of making it, well I thought Saunders nailed this. Playing off him was Doug Henderson as Randy, please please please please someone pick this guy up and take him all the way. Henderson is an absolute scene stealing son of a bitch, his effortless delivery of some fairly complex dialogue makes him a joy to watch. I see a bright future for this guy. Just check out this delivery…
Both the leads are utterly brilliant but I cant take anything away from the supporting cast, Rebecca Wahls and Devon Brookshire in particular shine in there scenes as Vera and Kathy respectively, both playing very strongly off the cocky confident leads.
This recommend couldn’t be any stronger, I want you all to go check this flick out. Aaron Goodmiller has done a fantastic job on directing duties considering he was thrown into it at short notice after writer Eric Espejo had to bow out. Yes it is low budget, but this is a movie that knows where it lives and what its strengths are, complex witty dialogue and a brilliant cast that can deliver. Admins uses those strengths to there fullest and truly is a gem of a movie not to be missed.
So with that in mind here is where you can get a hold of it, and I suggest you do…