Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Revived in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I must be the sad opposite corner of book club. NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE LOVED REVIVED AND I DIDN'T.
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Lee (2222 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
After a pretty lengthy drought, we finally get another decent DC movie
As the DC TV universe continues to go from strength to strength, the DC movie universe is gradually going downhill. Don’t get me wrong, I really liked Man of Steel, despite the overloaded CGI destruction at the end. I didn’t mind Batman Vs Superman either, even with Jesse Eisenberg doing his very best to try and ruin it. But, despite successfully introducing two other major DC heavyweight characters (and not so successfully introducing a few others) and picking up steam in the final act, the movie struggled. Suicide Squad then managed to take bad to a completely new level, and was just a complete train-wreck.
Batman Vs Superman was our first introduction to Wonder Woman in the DC movie universe, and she was the most entertaining and promising aspect of the whole movie. As a child of the 70s, I grew up watching and enjoying the Wonder Woman TV show, along with re-runs of the Batman 60s show and of course the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. After all these years of countless Batman and Superman movies, it was great to not only see Wonder Woman finally on the big screen, but also to see her being portrayed so well. Now, with her standalone movie coming out a few months before the mediocre looking Justice League movie, this is not only an important movie for DC but also an important first step in finally bringing strong female superheroes to the big screen. Paving the way for Captain Marvel, a Black Widow standalone movie, and more. This had to be good.
Thankfully, it is. Although there’s still a long way to go in order to reach the level that Marvel already managed to achieve many movies ago, this is indeed a serious step up for DC. Opening with a brief scene set in present day, Wonder Woman then takes us back to Themyscira. A paradise island, hidden from view from the rest of the world, where a young Diana lives peacefully among her Amazon tribe. Despite their peaceful existence though, the Amazons are constantly preparing themselves for the return of Ares, God of War. Archery and combat training is undertaken daily on the island, under the guidance of Dianas aunt, General Antiope (Robin Wright). Diana is keen to train too and her reluctant mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), eventually agrees, requesting that General Antiope train her hard and make her the best. As Diana grows into a woman, training has clearly gone well and she’s even managing to give her aunt a good run for her money! Just in time too as World War 1 pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crashes through the invisible barrier cloaking the island and crash lands into the sea, closely followed by a bunch of Germans who are on his tail. Time for the Amazon women to put their training to good use, but not without some casualties…
Steve tells Diana of the great war that’s raging throughout the world and Diana believes this to be the return of Ares. She decides to leave her home and travel with Steve to put an end to Ares once and for all. So, she grabs her shield and lasso of truth and ‘borrows’ the sacred ‘God Killer’ sword from the tower it rests in and off they go. Leaving behind the bright, vibrant island of Themyscira and returning to the traditional, dark grey pallet of colours that we’re used to seeing in our DC movies as they head to war-torn London.
Steve takes over as charming tour guide as Diana enters the human world for the first time. Her innocence and curiosity of the modern world are played beautifully by Gadot, with plenty of fish-out-of-water style humour too. But she’s also never afraid to question and stand up for what she believes in and tackle those who try and oppose her, giving an interesting perspective on aspects of humanity which deserve to be questioned. Her drive to get to the front-line of war, to seek out Ares and supposedly end all war by defeating him, constantly driving her forward. Romance eventually blossoms between Diana and Steve, but it feels natural and believable and helps to hold the movie together during some of its slower moments.
When Wonder Woman manages to get to the front line and steps out into no-mans land, ignoring the advice of Steve and those around her, it’s magnificent. It heralds the first in a series of magnificent action sequences involving German soldiers as she puts her training to good use. Initially shielding herself from the onslaught of bullets before moving onto the offensive with some bad-ass combat moves, slo-mo back-flips, jumps, whip action and displays of pure power and strength. Everything we got a glimpse of in Batman Vs Superman, ramped up to the max, perfectly executed and accompanied by a rocking soundtrack!
Where Wonder Woman doesn’t work so well is in the handling of its villains. Whenever we switch to General Ludendorff and Doctor Poison, busily developing deadly gases to unleash, momentum seems to be lost. And as for Ares, when we do finally meet him he’s pretty laughable, with no clearly defined motivation or character. Following a bit of villain monologue, we get the general gist of what his beef is and then the last 20 minutes or so descend into the over the top CG destruction that we’re so used to seeing now in these movies. It’s a minor gripe, and not handled as badly as some previous movies, but along with the pacing issues it does affect the overall enjoyment of the movie somewhat.
None of this detracts from Wonder Woman herself though. Gal Gadot has truly made this role her own and displays the perfect mix of strength, beauty, brains, confidence, determination and general all-round girl power. She can more than hold her own in the DC universe and should hopefully be a prominent force in the upcoming Justice League movie and beyond.
Batman Vs Superman was our first introduction to Wonder Woman in the DC movie universe, and she was the most entertaining and promising aspect of the whole movie. As a child of the 70s, I grew up watching and enjoying the Wonder Woman TV show, along with re-runs of the Batman 60s show and of course the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. After all these years of countless Batman and Superman movies, it was great to not only see Wonder Woman finally on the big screen, but also to see her being portrayed so well. Now, with her standalone movie coming out a few months before the mediocre looking Justice League movie, this is not only an important movie for DC but also an important first step in finally bringing strong female superheroes to the big screen. Paving the way for Captain Marvel, a Black Widow standalone movie, and more. This had to be good.
Thankfully, it is. Although there’s still a long way to go in order to reach the level that Marvel already managed to achieve many movies ago, this is indeed a serious step up for DC. Opening with a brief scene set in present day, Wonder Woman then takes us back to Themyscira. A paradise island, hidden from view from the rest of the world, where a young Diana lives peacefully among her Amazon tribe. Despite their peaceful existence though, the Amazons are constantly preparing themselves for the return of Ares, God of War. Archery and combat training is undertaken daily on the island, under the guidance of Dianas aunt, General Antiope (Robin Wright). Diana is keen to train too and her reluctant mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), eventually agrees, requesting that General Antiope train her hard and make her the best. As Diana grows into a woman, training has clearly gone well and she’s even managing to give her aunt a good run for her money! Just in time too as World War 1 pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crashes through the invisible barrier cloaking the island and crash lands into the sea, closely followed by a bunch of Germans who are on his tail. Time for the Amazon women to put their training to good use, but not without some casualties…
Steve tells Diana of the great war that’s raging throughout the world and Diana believes this to be the return of Ares. She decides to leave her home and travel with Steve to put an end to Ares once and for all. So, she grabs her shield and lasso of truth and ‘borrows’ the sacred ‘God Killer’ sword from the tower it rests in and off they go. Leaving behind the bright, vibrant island of Themyscira and returning to the traditional, dark grey pallet of colours that we’re used to seeing in our DC movies as they head to war-torn London.
Steve takes over as charming tour guide as Diana enters the human world for the first time. Her innocence and curiosity of the modern world are played beautifully by Gadot, with plenty of fish-out-of-water style humour too. But she’s also never afraid to question and stand up for what she believes in and tackle those who try and oppose her, giving an interesting perspective on aspects of humanity which deserve to be questioned. Her drive to get to the front-line of war, to seek out Ares and supposedly end all war by defeating him, constantly driving her forward. Romance eventually blossoms between Diana and Steve, but it feels natural and believable and helps to hold the movie together during some of its slower moments.
When Wonder Woman manages to get to the front line and steps out into no-mans land, ignoring the advice of Steve and those around her, it’s magnificent. It heralds the first in a series of magnificent action sequences involving German soldiers as she puts her training to good use. Initially shielding herself from the onslaught of bullets before moving onto the offensive with some bad-ass combat moves, slo-mo back-flips, jumps, whip action and displays of pure power and strength. Everything we got a glimpse of in Batman Vs Superman, ramped up to the max, perfectly executed and accompanied by a rocking soundtrack!
Where Wonder Woman doesn’t work so well is in the handling of its villains. Whenever we switch to General Ludendorff and Doctor Poison, busily developing deadly gases to unleash, momentum seems to be lost. And as for Ares, when we do finally meet him he’s pretty laughable, with no clearly defined motivation or character. Following a bit of villain monologue, we get the general gist of what his beef is and then the last 20 minutes or so descend into the over the top CG destruction that we’re so used to seeing now in these movies. It’s a minor gripe, and not handled as badly as some previous movies, but along with the pacing issues it does affect the overall enjoyment of the movie somewhat.
None of this detracts from Wonder Woman herself though. Gal Gadot has truly made this role her own and displays the perfect mix of strength, beauty, brains, confidence, determination and general all-round girl power. She can more than hold her own in the DC universe and should hopefully be a prominent force in the upcoming Justice League movie and beyond.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising (2020) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
It was very exciting to finally get an anime screening at my local Cineworld. We don't seem to get considered for these different screenings very often so it made a nice change to see something a little unusual.
A class of superheroes-in-training are sent to an island where the resident hero has retired. Getting experience is the best way to learn and getting to know the people around them will help them learn what they're fighting for.
The day to day hero life is hum-drum but fulfilling and most of the trainees are settling in well. Things are about to change, a spate of superpower robberies take place and it seems the culprits are heading for the island.
I've read manga in the past and have seen snippets of anime from time to time but I don't think I've ever sat down to a whole film of it apart from Pokemon. Possibly I shouldn't have started with something fairly deep in an existing franchise but I wasn't aware of it beforehand, and actually, I would have said it could have been a standalone after watching it.
It was really nice to see so many people there for it, there were about 30 others which felt like quite a lot for our cinema, more than I was expecting... and by the look of it there were all young enough to be my kids, so that was a fun experience.
I'm not going to lie, I was very confused at the beginning. It opens on a chase sequence and with no idea who these characters were or what was happening, I was lost. It doesn't take too long to get the gist of everything after this but it really threw me for a while.
On the advice of Twitter peeps I went and saw the subtitled release rather than the dubbed, this would have been my personal choice too as I find dubbing a rather hit and miss format. I'm not sure what might be lost in translation but some of the dialogue didn't seem natural, it might be an interesting experience to see it again with a dubbed track over it for the comparison.
You know when you're driving and looking for a turning so you can see where you're going better? During that first chase scene in particular the music is quite loud and the voices were hardly audible... I know I didn't need to head the audio as I wouldn't have understood it anyway but reading the subtitles without hearing the pacing was quite tricky and felt like it was partly why the scene was confusing to me. (This brings up all sorts of questions about subtitles when people HAVE to use them that I'd never even considered before.) The sound issue did get a little better as it progressed, but there was still a discrepancy through the film.
One good guy has to be virtuous and self-sacrificing, one has to be overly aggressive with a hidden soft side, another has to be adorably cute. Is that how they all work or just this one? Oh, and for the most part, everyone has to have great hair. I found either end of the scale of characters to be frustrating, Mahoro and Bakugo (I hope I'm getting these character names right) were on the aggressive side and the outbursts of screaming didn't make a lot of sense. There are several of the heroes that have a rather saccharine demeanour that also grated at me. Within the ensemble though there were characters like Deku and Katsuma who felt much more balanced, and Katsuma was so adorable to boot.
The story for the film seemed simple enough, bad guys want something, good guys have to protect it and stop them. Classic. But the back story to it seemed very complicated with a whole section of the film verging on unnecessary. This could be something that makes more sense with it combined with the series, but it's not something I'm going to know for now.
That may or may not have contributed to me struggling through the first 40 minutes of the film. I'm sure a little advanced knowledge might have helped, for example, I don't know whether Nine's motivations were established in the series. As it was it took me a while to work out.
Once we hit the confrontation of the film everything really picks up and I was a lot more engaged. As it progresses there's quite a strong moral compass that becomes evident and a lot of teachable moments are thrown at us, by the end I was really moved by some of the characters and their actions. Emotions were surprisingly well handled and the sense of right and wrong with them come across well.
I did have fun watching the film but there were things that held me back. The fact that the villain is well matched by a group of unattended school kids with only a partial grasp on their powers being one. Essentially the heroes come back for round two with nothing more than determination, but I get the sense that that all just helps with the sense that anyone can triumph over evil. I could rant on about this until the cows come home.
The biggest thing that held this back is not really a negative to the film, it's more that I'm a newbie to it. Anime is made up of several different styles, realistic, cartoonish, fantastical, that's a lot to deal with when you're not familiar with something. In a bad comparison for you it's like watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit? without knowing half the characters, you don't know why they look the way they do and you don't know what their function is. The only way that's going to make more sense to me is by watching more of it.
My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising is probably a good place for me to pick up some anime knowledge, once the film got going it was an enjoyable ride. As a nice surprise this also attracted the best audience I've had in quite a while.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/my-hero-academia-heroes-rising-movie.html
A class of superheroes-in-training are sent to an island where the resident hero has retired. Getting experience is the best way to learn and getting to know the people around them will help them learn what they're fighting for.
The day to day hero life is hum-drum but fulfilling and most of the trainees are settling in well. Things are about to change, a spate of superpower robberies take place and it seems the culprits are heading for the island.
I've read manga in the past and have seen snippets of anime from time to time but I don't think I've ever sat down to a whole film of it apart from Pokemon. Possibly I shouldn't have started with something fairly deep in an existing franchise but I wasn't aware of it beforehand, and actually, I would have said it could have been a standalone after watching it.
It was really nice to see so many people there for it, there were about 30 others which felt like quite a lot for our cinema, more than I was expecting... and by the look of it there were all young enough to be my kids, so that was a fun experience.
I'm not going to lie, I was very confused at the beginning. It opens on a chase sequence and with no idea who these characters were or what was happening, I was lost. It doesn't take too long to get the gist of everything after this but it really threw me for a while.
On the advice of Twitter peeps I went and saw the subtitled release rather than the dubbed, this would have been my personal choice too as I find dubbing a rather hit and miss format. I'm not sure what might be lost in translation but some of the dialogue didn't seem natural, it might be an interesting experience to see it again with a dubbed track over it for the comparison.
You know when you're driving and looking for a turning so you can see where you're going better? During that first chase scene in particular the music is quite loud and the voices were hardly audible... I know I didn't need to head the audio as I wouldn't have understood it anyway but reading the subtitles without hearing the pacing was quite tricky and felt like it was partly why the scene was confusing to me. (This brings up all sorts of questions about subtitles when people HAVE to use them that I'd never even considered before.) The sound issue did get a little better as it progressed, but there was still a discrepancy through the film.
One good guy has to be virtuous and self-sacrificing, one has to be overly aggressive with a hidden soft side, another has to be adorably cute. Is that how they all work or just this one? Oh, and for the most part, everyone has to have great hair. I found either end of the scale of characters to be frustrating, Mahoro and Bakugo (I hope I'm getting these character names right) were on the aggressive side and the outbursts of screaming didn't make a lot of sense. There are several of the heroes that have a rather saccharine demeanour that also grated at me. Within the ensemble though there were characters like Deku and Katsuma who felt much more balanced, and Katsuma was so adorable to boot.
The story for the film seemed simple enough, bad guys want something, good guys have to protect it and stop them. Classic. But the back story to it seemed very complicated with a whole section of the film verging on unnecessary. This could be something that makes more sense with it combined with the series, but it's not something I'm going to know for now.
That may or may not have contributed to me struggling through the first 40 minutes of the film. I'm sure a little advanced knowledge might have helped, for example, I don't know whether Nine's motivations were established in the series. As it was it took me a while to work out.
Once we hit the confrontation of the film everything really picks up and I was a lot more engaged. As it progresses there's quite a strong moral compass that becomes evident and a lot of teachable moments are thrown at us, by the end I was really moved by some of the characters and their actions. Emotions were surprisingly well handled and the sense of right and wrong with them come across well.
I did have fun watching the film but there were things that held me back. The fact that the villain is well matched by a group of unattended school kids with only a partial grasp on their powers being one. Essentially the heroes come back for round two with nothing more than determination, but I get the sense that that all just helps with the sense that anyone can triumph over evil. I could rant on about this until the cows come home.
The biggest thing that held this back is not really a negative to the film, it's more that I'm a newbie to it. Anime is made up of several different styles, realistic, cartoonish, fantastical, that's a lot to deal with when you're not familiar with something. In a bad comparison for you it's like watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit? without knowing half the characters, you don't know why they look the way they do and you don't know what their function is. The only way that's going to make more sense to me is by watching more of it.
My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising is probably a good place for me to pick up some anime knowledge, once the film got going it was an enjoyable ride. As a nice surprise this also attracted the best audience I've had in quite a while.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/my-hero-academia-heroes-rising-movie.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
After putting in plenty of years and two prior movies spent protecting the President, Secret Service member Mike Banning is up for promotion. In Angel Has Fallen, the third installment of the Fallen franchise, Banning has been personally hand-picked by President Allan Trumbull to take over as the new Secret Service Director. Trumbull tells him the good news directly during a getaway fishing trip, but then things quickly turn bad when a drone attack attempts to assassinate the President. Banning is able to successfully save himself and the President, but the attack kills all the rest of the Secret Service members on site and the aftermath leaves Trumbull in a coma. Planted DNA evidence linking Banning to an involvement in the attack leads to his arrest, and with the President unconscious, he has no other witness to clear his name. Banning’s obviously been framed and set-up and will have to escape from authorities to find out who is responsible, and to also protect the President from any further attempts on his life.
Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, Angel Has Fallen is a film that starts off pretty well, yet I feel that the whole narrative of Banning being so easily framed is pretty hard to believe, especially given that he’s been the hero of two films already. It’s the driving force of the film’s story and yet it seems highly questionable to me that the intelligence committee would be so quick to blame it all on Banning considering his reputable history. Naturally any attack on the President is taken very seriously, but the FBI is extremely quick to condemn the man that just saved his life. I think it’s the weakest part of the story, although story is not an area this film ever really excels at. I would even say that most of its attempts at being smart usually fall flat. Regardless, this is the kind of movie that would be best enjoyed if you didn’t take it too seriously. It’s in many ways a throwback to the macho action movies of yesteryear, and that’s where it makes up for its shortcomings.
As the first film I’ve seen in this series, I admittedly had low expectations for it. If not for my dad wanting to see it, I probably would have skipped it entirely, but in truth it turned out to be better than I had anticipated. It’s also been the number one movie at the box office for two weeks running, so what do I know? I must confess that ever since seeing Den of Thieves last year, I’ve instantly become a huge fan of Gerard Butler, whose filmography I’ve largely overlooked. I love his energy, his over-the-top acting and his tough guy persona. He’s a great fit here in Angel Has Fallen as Banning and is enjoyable to watch, even if at times it can be a little hard to believe that he’s somehow always the smartest guy in the room.
The rest of the cast in the movie is respectful as well. Morgan Freeman is a comfortable choice as President Trumbull, and he truly makes me long for a time when we had a sane and competent President. It’s a rather reserved role for Freeman, as he spends most of the runtime in a coma. Still, he’s a graceful and welcome presence who has at least a couple moments to shine. Jada Pinkett Smith has the unfortunate role of playing the FBI agent who orders Banning’s arrest, and I wish she had a bit more to work with. Nick Nolte plays Banning’s estranged father Clay, a paranoid war veteran living off the grid, and he’s one of the highlights of the film. I enjoyed his character’s relationship with Banning, and he and Butler play off each other well. Danny Huston also gives a worthwhile performance as Banning’s former military companion Wade Jennings.
Despite having the appearance of a run-of-the-mill, rescue-the-President type of action movie, the action is actually for the most part quite admirable. Right from the get-go, it makes an impressive statement with its tense and exciting introductory scene which feels reminiscent of tactical military-style video games. The movie is heavy on explosions, shootouts, and hand-to-hand combat, and its action is generally fun. There’s also an impressive final stand-off that’s surprisingly well-planned and executed. It’s in moments like this where the movie demonstrates its intelligence and expertise. If not for these strong action sequences, I feel the movie as a whole would have suffered tremendously, but it rightfully delivers on what we came to see. Of course, not all of the action is stellar, and there’s a clunker of a car chase thrown into the mix, but overall I was entertained.
One area where the movie could have used some more improvement was with the special effects. They’re sufficient in the sense that they still clearly convey what the movie is trying to show, but a lot of it looks noticeably fake. It’s unfortunate, but I also don’t believe it was ever a major distraction. Another issue with the film is that its run-time feels a little long and there are some subplots that I really couldn’t care less about. It’s your standard government scheming and political conspiracy stuff, complete with all of the twists you would expect, but it isn’t particularly interesting, even if it does explain the purpose of the initial attack on the President.
Overall, I had a better time with Angel Has Fallen than I would have imagined. It’s far from great, but it’s good enough that I’ll probably now check out the two previous Fallen films at some point. The story might leave a lot to be desired, but the action sequences help fill the void. I would recommend it for fans of action movies, or anyone who likes Gerard Butler. It’s not something anyone needs to rush to the theater to see, but if you’re looking for a little action to end your summer with, it should do the trick.
Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, Angel Has Fallen is a film that starts off pretty well, yet I feel that the whole narrative of Banning being so easily framed is pretty hard to believe, especially given that he’s been the hero of two films already. It’s the driving force of the film’s story and yet it seems highly questionable to me that the intelligence committee would be so quick to blame it all on Banning considering his reputable history. Naturally any attack on the President is taken very seriously, but the FBI is extremely quick to condemn the man that just saved his life. I think it’s the weakest part of the story, although story is not an area this film ever really excels at. I would even say that most of its attempts at being smart usually fall flat. Regardless, this is the kind of movie that would be best enjoyed if you didn’t take it too seriously. It’s in many ways a throwback to the macho action movies of yesteryear, and that’s where it makes up for its shortcomings.
As the first film I’ve seen in this series, I admittedly had low expectations for it. If not for my dad wanting to see it, I probably would have skipped it entirely, but in truth it turned out to be better than I had anticipated. It’s also been the number one movie at the box office for two weeks running, so what do I know? I must confess that ever since seeing Den of Thieves last year, I’ve instantly become a huge fan of Gerard Butler, whose filmography I’ve largely overlooked. I love his energy, his over-the-top acting and his tough guy persona. He’s a great fit here in Angel Has Fallen as Banning and is enjoyable to watch, even if at times it can be a little hard to believe that he’s somehow always the smartest guy in the room.
The rest of the cast in the movie is respectful as well. Morgan Freeman is a comfortable choice as President Trumbull, and he truly makes me long for a time when we had a sane and competent President. It’s a rather reserved role for Freeman, as he spends most of the runtime in a coma. Still, he’s a graceful and welcome presence who has at least a couple moments to shine. Jada Pinkett Smith has the unfortunate role of playing the FBI agent who orders Banning’s arrest, and I wish she had a bit more to work with. Nick Nolte plays Banning’s estranged father Clay, a paranoid war veteran living off the grid, and he’s one of the highlights of the film. I enjoyed his character’s relationship with Banning, and he and Butler play off each other well. Danny Huston also gives a worthwhile performance as Banning’s former military companion Wade Jennings.
Despite having the appearance of a run-of-the-mill, rescue-the-President type of action movie, the action is actually for the most part quite admirable. Right from the get-go, it makes an impressive statement with its tense and exciting introductory scene which feels reminiscent of tactical military-style video games. The movie is heavy on explosions, shootouts, and hand-to-hand combat, and its action is generally fun. There’s also an impressive final stand-off that’s surprisingly well-planned and executed. It’s in moments like this where the movie demonstrates its intelligence and expertise. If not for these strong action sequences, I feel the movie as a whole would have suffered tremendously, but it rightfully delivers on what we came to see. Of course, not all of the action is stellar, and there’s a clunker of a car chase thrown into the mix, but overall I was entertained.
One area where the movie could have used some more improvement was with the special effects. They’re sufficient in the sense that they still clearly convey what the movie is trying to show, but a lot of it looks noticeably fake. It’s unfortunate, but I also don’t believe it was ever a major distraction. Another issue with the film is that its run-time feels a little long and there are some subplots that I really couldn’t care less about. It’s your standard government scheming and political conspiracy stuff, complete with all of the twists you would expect, but it isn’t particularly interesting, even if it does explain the purpose of the initial attack on the President.
Overall, I had a better time with Angel Has Fallen than I would have imagined. It’s far from great, but it’s good enough that I’ll probably now check out the two previous Fallen films at some point. The story might leave a lot to be desired, but the action sequences help fill the void. I would recommend it for fans of action movies, or anyone who likes Gerard Butler. It’s not something anyone needs to rush to the theater to see, but if you’re looking for a little action to end your summer with, it should do the trick.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Book-Review-Banner-40.png"/>;
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van by Ali McNamara is exactly the book I thought I needed to put me in a better mood!
When Ana inherits a camper van from her best friend, she needs to go to Cornwall to get it. A nice sea air and fish and chips are enver a bad choice.
But when she arrives, she realises that the camper van is in a much worse state than she imagined. The fixing will take longer than she anticipated. On top of this, Ana finds a series of unsent postcards dating back to the 1940s, hidden in the van. This is a sign and Ana wants to make sure the postcards are delivered.
And while the camper van is restored and Ana is helping other people be happy, she may eventually notice she is finding her way back to happiness again.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van got my attention from the moment I saw that beautiful cover. Then, I read the synopsis and I was sold.
For me, both camper vans and postcards have a big importance in my life. I have always wanted to have a camper van and be able to go on a road trips and experience that freedom. Even though I was lucky to be able to travel the world, it is never enough.
<b><i>"Yes, there's definitely something about a camper van that makes people smile. They're a happy vehicle, so people enjoy seeing them as much as their owners enjoy driving them."</i></b>
And postcards were always a way to travel without living my home. Get to meet other places and cultures, meet other people. It is extraordinary how many things I have learned about the world and the people from other countries just by reading their postcards.
<b><i>"Deltiology - it's the name for the study and collection of postcards. It comes from the Greek word deltios, which means "writing tablet" or "letter"."</i></b>
Ana is working in London, busy in her day-to-day job. When her best friend Daisy dies, she is completely lost. Daisy was everything she had, and now she is gone. When she inherits this van, Ana is eager to pick the van up and return to her normal London routine. She is not really a fan of travel, camper vans or camping. But Daisy was, and if she wanted for Ana to have this van and that was her last wish, this is the least Ana can do for her.
<b><i>"These old vehicles are very sensitive - especially camper vans. They're the worst, very temperamental they can be."</i></b>
Throughout her stay, Ana meets Malachi, the mechanic, who sold the van to Daisy and who will help Ana restore it. He is a very interesting character with an interesting point of view on life.
He was my favourite character in the book.
<b><i>"People pay a lot of money these days to find themselves. They're not really finding themselves, they're finding a version of themselves they feel happy to be for a while."
"We all change through our lives, and what you're happy to be when you're twenty is unlikely to be what you're happy being when you're older."</i></b>
Malachi also has a camper van himself. He always tells Ana why camper vans are amazing. If you are a fan of camper van, this book will be a favourite by default.
<b><i>"But... you'd be mad not to at least try camping in her. It's a wonderful experience. You can drive where you like, set up camp and cook your dinner in the open air, even bed down under the stars if you're lucky. The freedom is amazing."</i></b>
I loved everything about this book. The story was beautiful. All the characters were likeable and real. They all had their stories and points of development. It was nice to see Ana finally healing and learning to be happy again. Malachi's story was beautiful and it was the perfect closure to his mission. Noah's personal story was also heartwarming, as he learns to accept what happened in the past and be able to move on. I also really want to talk about the mystery couple from the postcards, but I won't, in fear that I will spoil anything. But the development on that story was amazing and it helped Ana in many ways to heal herself, which was magical!
<b><i>"If something is worth doing, Ana - I hear one of her favourite sayings echo in my ears - it's worth doing well."</i></b>
To summarize - Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van is my new favorite!
Beautiful and heartwarming. It will make you want to go on a road trip. I definitely recommend Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van. And as with every book, I love learning random things, and here are some things I learned:
<b><i>"Did you know the phrase "dilly-dally" is commonly attributed to the English music hall singer Marie Lloyd, but was actually in use much earlier than her 1918 song, as far back as the seventeenth century?"
"A Splitty. It's what we call a split screen camper van. All pre-1967 camper vans have a windscreen split in two. After that the new models all had the solid bay windows."</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Book-Review-Banner-40.png"/>;
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van by Ali McNamara is exactly the book I thought I needed to put me in a better mood!
When Ana inherits a camper van from her best friend, she needs to go to Cornwall to get it. A nice sea air and fish and chips are enver a bad choice.
But when she arrives, she realises that the camper van is in a much worse state than she imagined. The fixing will take longer than she anticipated. On top of this, Ana finds a series of unsent postcards dating back to the 1940s, hidden in the van. This is a sign and Ana wants to make sure the postcards are delivered.
And while the camper van is restored and Ana is helping other people be happy, she may eventually notice she is finding her way back to happiness again.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van got my attention from the moment I saw that beautiful cover. Then, I read the synopsis and I was sold.
For me, both camper vans and postcards have a big importance in my life. I have always wanted to have a camper van and be able to go on a road trips and experience that freedom. Even though I was lucky to be able to travel the world, it is never enough.
<b><i>"Yes, there's definitely something about a camper van that makes people smile. They're a happy vehicle, so people enjoy seeing them as much as their owners enjoy driving them."</i></b>
And postcards were always a way to travel without living my home. Get to meet other places and cultures, meet other people. It is extraordinary how many things I have learned about the world and the people from other countries just by reading their postcards.
<b><i>"Deltiology - it's the name for the study and collection of postcards. It comes from the Greek word deltios, which means "writing tablet" or "letter"."</i></b>
Ana is working in London, busy in her day-to-day job. When her best friend Daisy dies, she is completely lost. Daisy was everything she had, and now she is gone. When she inherits this van, Ana is eager to pick the van up and return to her normal London routine. She is not really a fan of travel, camper vans or camping. But Daisy was, and if she wanted for Ana to have this van and that was her last wish, this is the least Ana can do for her.
<b><i>"These old vehicles are very sensitive - especially camper vans. They're the worst, very temperamental they can be."</i></b>
Throughout her stay, Ana meets Malachi, the mechanic, who sold the van to Daisy and who will help Ana restore it. He is a very interesting character with an interesting point of view on life.
He was my favourite character in the book.
<b><i>"People pay a lot of money these days to find themselves. They're not really finding themselves, they're finding a version of themselves they feel happy to be for a while."
"We all change through our lives, and what you're happy to be when you're twenty is unlikely to be what you're happy being when you're older."</i></b>
Malachi also has a camper van himself. He always tells Ana why camper vans are amazing. If you are a fan of camper van, this book will be a favourite by default.
<b><i>"But... you'd be mad not to at least try camping in her. It's a wonderful experience. You can drive where you like, set up camp and cook your dinner in the open air, even bed down under the stars if you're lucky. The freedom is amazing."</i></b>
I loved everything about this book. The story was beautiful. All the characters were likeable and real. They all had their stories and points of development. It was nice to see Ana finally healing and learning to be happy again. Malachi's story was beautiful and it was the perfect closure to his mission. Noah's personal story was also heartwarming, as he learns to accept what happened in the past and be able to move on. I also really want to talk about the mystery couple from the postcards, but I won't, in fear that I will spoil anything. But the development on that story was amazing and it helped Ana in many ways to heal herself, which was magical!
<b><i>"If something is worth doing, Ana - I hear one of her favourite sayings echo in my ears - it's worth doing well."</i></b>
To summarize - Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van is my new favorite!
Beautiful and heartwarming. It will make you want to go on a road trip. I definitely recommend Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van. And as with every book, I love learning random things, and here are some things I learned:
<b><i>"Did you know the phrase "dilly-dally" is commonly attributed to the English music hall singer Marie Lloyd, but was actually in use much earlier than her 1918 song, as far back as the seventeenth century?"
"A Splitty. It's what we call a split screen camper van. All pre-1967 camper vans have a windscreen split in two. After that the new models all had the solid bay windows."</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
Cast (3 more)
Sets
Script
Directing
Masterpiece
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the weekend, I was lucky enough to go and see one of my favourite films ever made on the big screen; Goodfellas. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of seeing the movie in an actual cinema, but it has been a few years since I have last seen it and seeing it after seeing some of Scorsese’s more recent efforts, I actually saw the story in a different light.
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Oct 13, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
Top Notch Performances. (1 more)
Effective Scares.
Hard To Watch, Yet Impossible To Turn Away
Contains spoilers, click to show
After being underwhelmed by the major blockbuster release of IT, I didn’t have much hope for this small Netflix movie with a limited cast, a low budget and being an adaption of what is regarded as one of Stephen King’s lesser works. I am happy to report that I was pleasantly surprised when I sat down to watch this one, in fact I’d go as far as to say it blew me away.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Chronicles of Crime: 1900 in Tabletop Games
Apr 23, 2021
WARNING: Extremely minor spoilers ahead (in the photos)! Don’t say I didn’t warn you (they aren’t big spoilers).
If you have been following us for a while now you have probably noticed we have published another title from the Millennium Series – Chronicles of Crime: 1400. While that title takes place in the year, well, 1400, this new title is set 500 years later in Paris. How do these games compare? What about the link to the original Chronicles of Crime (review to be posted later)? Should one purchase copies of all Chronicles of Crime games?
Chronicles of Crime: 1900 (which I shall refer to as CoC1900 from here) is a cooperative campaign, deduction, storytelling, puzzle solving adventure game, but I prefer to play it, and its relatives, solo. In it, the player(s) take control of the journalist Victor Lavel, a descendent of the main character from CoC1400. Victor has a limited amount of time to complete his investigation and return the scoop to the local newspaper by which he is employed. Players will be tackling the investigations of our noble hero in attempts to solve the case that is presented.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the main card holder board on the table. Anywhere. I called it. Next, keep the card decks in order (or don’t) and place them near the board. Similarly, place the location boards on the table and ready the main newspaper board for play. Launch the Chronicles of Crime app on a device, choose 1900, and select the scenario you wish to play. The app will drive the remainder of the game, so hold onto your butts!
How do I explain this game succinctly? Well, each of the cases will involve players traveling to different Location Boards and meeting Characters at these locations. Many cases will be involving several Special Items and, new for the 1900 version, Puzzle Cards that players will need to solve or use in special ways in order to progress with certain leads. These Puzzle Cards do not really give the story away or anything, but are merely tools to be used to help solve the cases.
By using the app and scanning the QR codes on the boards and cards players will be learning about the case, viewing the scene of the crime(s), inspecting items, and chatting up locals for information. Play will continue not so much in “rounds” but until the players have enough evidence and a good handle on the situation enough to return to the paper’s office to report to their coworkers all the details of the crime(s) by scanning answers to their questions about the case. The app then assesses the accuracy of the answers and outputs a score. Based on the score achieved players can play again to pick up clues they missed along the way or try another scenario entirely.
Components. As with all CoC games I have played, the components are simply wonderful. Most of what is in the box is cardstock of varying thickness, but the art is what really stands out. This is a gorgeous game and when it is displayed on the table, people become fascinated by its presence. Then when the onlookers see an app driving the gameplay they are hooked. I have heard complaints from other reviewers that the Character cards in the game are lacking in variation, and I would have to agree. Yes, it is set in 1900 Paris, but all the Character cards feature white people, most of whom seem to be upper crust, and with most of the males sporting an awful mustache. So I get that complaint and agree. With inclusivity and diversity being major hot issues currently, you would expect to see more of it in our industry. I would have liked to have come across more diverse characters, and maybe a mini expansion can add many alternate art characters to the game.
All in all I loved this theme of Chronicles of Crime. Being set in Paris and following a young investigative journalist is a nice twist on the protagonists commonly featured in these games. The gameplay is the same as previous versions of CoC, save for the new Puzzle cards. I do enjoy their addition, and look to find more of these in future versions. I love the Chronicles of Crime system so I was bound to love this one as well.
Now, should you buy this version if you already have base Chronicles of Crime? Sure! Why? I like this one because it adds a different mechanic to the game with all-new scenarios, and I enjoy having more of a good thing. I think I personally prefer the theme in 1400 more, but 1900 is a great addition to the family. If you are someone who has and enjoys the base CoC, or any of its iterations, and are looking for more content to devour, then definitely grab a copy of 1900. If you are new to the system, I say go ahead and start with 1900. The Puzzle cards do not add enough complexity to take it out of reach for beginner gamers or those who enjoy lighter games, but certainly add a new and welcome layer to the series. Purple Phoenix Games certainly recommends this one to all our fans. Can’t get enough Chronicles of Crime? Grab 1900. Want to start in the series but London or Medieval times don’t do it for you? Grab 1900. Like tons of portraits of mustachioed white dudes and floofy ladies? Grab 1900. Whatever your motivation, play the game and let me know how you score. I am not advertising my first score here because I am mortified by my performance. (I did get better on subsequent plays.)
If you have been following us for a while now you have probably noticed we have published another title from the Millennium Series – Chronicles of Crime: 1400. While that title takes place in the year, well, 1400, this new title is set 500 years later in Paris. How do these games compare? What about the link to the original Chronicles of Crime (review to be posted later)? Should one purchase copies of all Chronicles of Crime games?
Chronicles of Crime: 1900 (which I shall refer to as CoC1900 from here) is a cooperative campaign, deduction, storytelling, puzzle solving adventure game, but I prefer to play it, and its relatives, solo. In it, the player(s) take control of the journalist Victor Lavel, a descendent of the main character from CoC1400. Victor has a limited amount of time to complete his investigation and return the scoop to the local newspaper by which he is employed. Players will be tackling the investigations of our noble hero in attempts to solve the case that is presented.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the main card holder board on the table. Anywhere. I called it. Next, keep the card decks in order (or don’t) and place them near the board. Similarly, place the location boards on the table and ready the main newspaper board for play. Launch the Chronicles of Crime app on a device, choose 1900, and select the scenario you wish to play. The app will drive the remainder of the game, so hold onto your butts!
How do I explain this game succinctly? Well, each of the cases will involve players traveling to different Location Boards and meeting Characters at these locations. Many cases will be involving several Special Items and, new for the 1900 version, Puzzle Cards that players will need to solve or use in special ways in order to progress with certain leads. These Puzzle Cards do not really give the story away or anything, but are merely tools to be used to help solve the cases.
By using the app and scanning the QR codes on the boards and cards players will be learning about the case, viewing the scene of the crime(s), inspecting items, and chatting up locals for information. Play will continue not so much in “rounds” but until the players have enough evidence and a good handle on the situation enough to return to the paper’s office to report to their coworkers all the details of the crime(s) by scanning answers to their questions about the case. The app then assesses the accuracy of the answers and outputs a score. Based on the score achieved players can play again to pick up clues they missed along the way or try another scenario entirely.
Components. As with all CoC games I have played, the components are simply wonderful. Most of what is in the box is cardstock of varying thickness, but the art is what really stands out. This is a gorgeous game and when it is displayed on the table, people become fascinated by its presence. Then when the onlookers see an app driving the gameplay they are hooked. I have heard complaints from other reviewers that the Character cards in the game are lacking in variation, and I would have to agree. Yes, it is set in 1900 Paris, but all the Character cards feature white people, most of whom seem to be upper crust, and with most of the males sporting an awful mustache. So I get that complaint and agree. With inclusivity and diversity being major hot issues currently, you would expect to see more of it in our industry. I would have liked to have come across more diverse characters, and maybe a mini expansion can add many alternate art characters to the game.
All in all I loved this theme of Chronicles of Crime. Being set in Paris and following a young investigative journalist is a nice twist on the protagonists commonly featured in these games. The gameplay is the same as previous versions of CoC, save for the new Puzzle cards. I do enjoy their addition, and look to find more of these in future versions. I love the Chronicles of Crime system so I was bound to love this one as well.
Now, should you buy this version if you already have base Chronicles of Crime? Sure! Why? I like this one because it adds a different mechanic to the game with all-new scenarios, and I enjoy having more of a good thing. I think I personally prefer the theme in 1400 more, but 1900 is a great addition to the family. If you are someone who has and enjoys the base CoC, or any of its iterations, and are looking for more content to devour, then definitely grab a copy of 1900. If you are new to the system, I say go ahead and start with 1900. The Puzzle cards do not add enough complexity to take it out of reach for beginner gamers or those who enjoy lighter games, but certainly add a new and welcome layer to the series. Purple Phoenix Games certainly recommends this one to all our fans. Can’t get enough Chronicles of Crime? Grab 1900. Want to start in the series but London or Medieval times don’t do it for you? Grab 1900. Like tons of portraits of mustachioed white dudes and floofy ladies? Grab 1900. Whatever your motivation, play the game and let me know how you score. I am not advertising my first score here because I am mortified by my performance. (I did get better on subsequent plays.)
