Search
Search results
EmersonRose (320 KP) rated In The Dark Corner I Stood Alone in Books
Nov 20, 2019
I stood alone in a dark corner. My imagination ran wild.”
In the Dark Corner, I stood Alone is a collection of short stories by author Petra Pavlikova, published on June 12th, 2018. These short stories pull together themes of women and fairytales. Telling stories about strong women in stressful situations, difficult because they are real, and how these women pull through, with a healthy dose of the fantastical. The collection itself is a short and easy read as the stories range in length from 5-20 pages each. I loved the beautiful imagery created in these stories as they each take you on fantastic journeys.
The characters in these stories are such strong and relatable women that I fell in love with each one as I read their story. From beginning to end this book captured this beautiful whimsey that kept me captivated in each story. As you read, each has a distinctive story to tell, but they are all in the same unique voice that has a charming but straightforward tone that captures the fairytale quality splendidly. I think that my favorite story may be The Smell of Sweet Lavender, as it tackles a heart-wrenching tale of trying to be true to yourself and the cost it sometimes has on those that you love most. But each was so unique that they held different messages and meanings to them, that I could see myself having a different favorite depending on what mood I was in at the time. This is definitely one of those books that I could see myself re-reading whenever I just wanted to curl up with a sweet set of stories that allow my imagination wander in the realm of fairies and distant kingdoms. The magic in them creates a tone but the themes within them last without extra flare, making them that much more poignant.
The other thing that makes this book really stand out is the remarkable work of the illustrator Anastasia Telegina. From the small flowers and bright colored pages to the exquisite images of the women in the book, the watercolor work is astounding and fits in perfectly with the wanderlust tone of the writing. Each time I saw that stories full image, I was blown away by the beauty and talent. They play with your imagination rather than entirely putting images in your head, keeping the fluidity of the imagination intact while still creating magnificent images. Creating perhaps what is more what a child might imagine from what is described that a realistic picture. This pair clearly makes an excellent team.
These are stories for almost any age in the themes it tackles and the beautiful way in which they are told. While some of the ideas may be intense for a younger audience, the way in which the stories are told make them accessible to any reader. They are important topics dealt with in a way that is natural and very real world, while held within a slightly more fantastical space. I very much enjoyed reading this book and would definitely recommend it. I will be keeping an eye out to read more from this author. Five Stars.
In the Dark Corner, I stood Alone is a collection of short stories by author Petra Pavlikova, published on June 12th, 2018. These short stories pull together themes of women and fairytales. Telling stories about strong women in stressful situations, difficult because they are real, and how these women pull through, with a healthy dose of the fantastical. The collection itself is a short and easy read as the stories range in length from 5-20 pages each. I loved the beautiful imagery created in these stories as they each take you on fantastic journeys.
The characters in these stories are such strong and relatable women that I fell in love with each one as I read their story. From beginning to end this book captured this beautiful whimsey that kept me captivated in each story. As you read, each has a distinctive story to tell, but they are all in the same unique voice that has a charming but straightforward tone that captures the fairytale quality splendidly. I think that my favorite story may be The Smell of Sweet Lavender, as it tackles a heart-wrenching tale of trying to be true to yourself and the cost it sometimes has on those that you love most. But each was so unique that they held different messages and meanings to them, that I could see myself having a different favorite depending on what mood I was in at the time. This is definitely one of those books that I could see myself re-reading whenever I just wanted to curl up with a sweet set of stories that allow my imagination wander in the realm of fairies and distant kingdoms. The magic in them creates a tone but the themes within them last without extra flare, making them that much more poignant.
The other thing that makes this book really stand out is the remarkable work of the illustrator Anastasia Telegina. From the small flowers and bright colored pages to the exquisite images of the women in the book, the watercolor work is astounding and fits in perfectly with the wanderlust tone of the writing. Each time I saw that stories full image, I was blown away by the beauty and talent. They play with your imagination rather than entirely putting images in your head, keeping the fluidity of the imagination intact while still creating magnificent images. Creating perhaps what is more what a child might imagine from what is described that a realistic picture. This pair clearly makes an excellent team.
These are stories for almost any age in the themes it tackles and the beautiful way in which they are told. While some of the ideas may be intense for a younger audience, the way in which the stories are told make them accessible to any reader. They are important topics dealt with in a way that is natural and very real world, while held within a slightly more fantastical space. I very much enjoyed reading this book and would definitely recommend it. I will be keeping an eye out to read more from this author. Five Stars.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 10, 2020
Verdict: Sensational
Story: 1917 starts as Lance Corporal Blake (Chapman) is assigned to pick one man, Lance Corporal Schofield (MacKay) to get a new mission from General Erinmore (Firth), their mission is to travel across enemy lines to deliver a message to stop a battalion of soldiers walking into a trap set by the Germans.
The two must travel at speed, with time against them, walking into the unknown, knowing they need to get to the battalion to hopeful save the soldiers including Blake’s own brother.
Thoughts on 1917
Characters – We do only focus on two main soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake whose brother is in one of the battalions the two are trying to stop attacking, he is more of a talking, can’t wait to get home, very close to his family, while Lance Corporal Schofield has been in the war longer, seen more horrors, keeps his horrors to himself and isn’t as excited about return home, for his own reason, which we learn through the journey. The two must work together to try and get to the battalions, each step is taking them to the unknown, needing to prepared for anything. We do meet other military people, whose job is to help the two continue their journey if they cross paths.
Performances – George MacKay is brilliant, proving yet again this guy is one of the best rising stars in the industry today, while Dean-Charles Chapman is excellent too, they two do have chemistry that shows off both their strengths in the characters they are playing.
Story – The story follows two soldiers that must travel into no man’s land in an attempt to try and stop an attack, which would see thousands of soldiers walking into an ambush. The story is kept very simple, it is showing as if we are following the two’s every step, seeing each obstacle they must face along the way, which shows the different horrors of war. We don’t get overly close to the two soldiers, while learning a little bit, not having a cheery conversation like other war films. This is one story that is easy to follow, we get the music which prepares us for anything that happens, as well as having a chance to keep us guessing about if, or how they get to their destination.
War – When it comes to the war side of the film, we get to see the environment the men would have been living between the fights, the surroundings that would have been left in the aftermath of the battles.
Settings – The film shows the war effects on the land, we see the destroyed town, the claustrophobic trenches, the fear of no man’s land, it is beautiful and haunting to see the settings.
Scene of the Movie – The line run.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes the camerawork can leave us losing our position in the scenes.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best war films you will ever see, it is shot like one take, which makes us follow their journey, adding the tension to every single moment of the film.
Overall: Simply Breath Taking.
Story: 1917 starts as Lance Corporal Blake (Chapman) is assigned to pick one man, Lance Corporal Schofield (MacKay) to get a new mission from General Erinmore (Firth), their mission is to travel across enemy lines to deliver a message to stop a battalion of soldiers walking into a trap set by the Germans.
The two must travel at speed, with time against them, walking into the unknown, knowing they need to get to the battalion to hopeful save the soldiers including Blake’s own brother.
Thoughts on 1917
Characters – We do only focus on two main soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake whose brother is in one of the battalions the two are trying to stop attacking, he is more of a talking, can’t wait to get home, very close to his family, while Lance Corporal Schofield has been in the war longer, seen more horrors, keeps his horrors to himself and isn’t as excited about return home, for his own reason, which we learn through the journey. The two must work together to try and get to the battalions, each step is taking them to the unknown, needing to prepared for anything. We do meet other military people, whose job is to help the two continue their journey if they cross paths.
Performances – George MacKay is brilliant, proving yet again this guy is one of the best rising stars in the industry today, while Dean-Charles Chapman is excellent too, they two do have chemistry that shows off both their strengths in the characters they are playing.
Story – The story follows two soldiers that must travel into no man’s land in an attempt to try and stop an attack, which would see thousands of soldiers walking into an ambush. The story is kept very simple, it is showing as if we are following the two’s every step, seeing each obstacle they must face along the way, which shows the different horrors of war. We don’t get overly close to the two soldiers, while learning a little bit, not having a cheery conversation like other war films. This is one story that is easy to follow, we get the music which prepares us for anything that happens, as well as having a chance to keep us guessing about if, or how they get to their destination.
War – When it comes to the war side of the film, we get to see the environment the men would have been living between the fights, the surroundings that would have been left in the aftermath of the battles.
Settings – The film shows the war effects on the land, we see the destroyed town, the claustrophobic trenches, the fear of no man’s land, it is beautiful and haunting to see the settings.
Scene of the Movie – The line run.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes the camerawork can leave us losing our position in the scenes.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best war films you will ever see, it is shot like one take, which makes us follow their journey, adding the tension to every single moment of the film.
Overall: Simply Breath Taking.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
JT (287 KP) rated Buried (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Shot with a low budget and entirely in one location (inside Paul’s coffin), Buried is a very intense and gripping movie, which plays on the age-old human fear of being buried alive and takes it to whole new levels.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Picking up after the harrowing events of book one, NO MERCY finds Officer Ellery Hathaway on leave. She's going to mandated therapy, attending a group for victims of violent crime. This isn't exactly Ellery's "cup of tea," as she's not one for sharing her feelings. In group, she meets Myra, a victim of a deadly fire years ago that killed her young son. Ellery quickly gets caught up in Myra's case and becomes convinced that the wrong man--who is up for parole--was convicted of the crime. Another group member, Wendy, was brutally raped, and she asks Ellery for help finding her rapist, who is still on the loose, leaving Wendy a shadow of her once vibrant self. Ellery turns to her friend, FBI agent Reed Markham, the man who rescued her so many years ago. Reed comes, of course; he can never say no to Ellery. But Reed is also in line for a big promotion, and his boss doesn't want him near Ellery. As the two start digging, they uncover secrets: lots of them.
"You kill one guy, one time, and suddenly everyone thinks you need therapy..."
I picked up this book immediately after reading book one, because I was so captivated by Reed and Ellery. They are an amazing duo, with wonderful chemistry, both for solving crimes and in the "will they, won't they" department. Schaffhausen writes in this steady, easy-to-read way that effortlessly brings her characters to life and makes it so easy to flip the pages. Just like the first book, I tore through this one in less than 24 hours.
There are plenty of twists and turns and lots of drama. But there's also a personal and touching element to these books. Ellery and Reed have such a connection. He supposedly rescued her all those years ago, pulling near-dead Ellery from the clutches of a serial killer. But, of course, that experience has formed and hardened her in so many ways. She's a tough cookie. And it's truly just Reed who can see past her outer shell. Ellery will only allow Reed to see little glimpses of her actual self.
The mystery in this book is exemplary. We go back in time to a series of fires in Boston. Even better, it has some ties to Reed's boss, McGreevy, who worked the Boston beat back in the day (see, everything is personal). The more present-day case, Wendy's rapist, fuels Ellery, who feels as if perhaps she is worthless, unable to affect change as a police officer. It's also personal, on a whole different level. Both are compelling. Each kept me guessing and while I had some inkling about the fires, nothing would stop me from frantically turning the pages!
In the end, this was an excellent book. I love the relationship between Ellery and Reed and how it's developing. Both cases were intriguing and kept me hooked from the beginning. I immediately turned to book three, and I'm so sad it's the last one (hopefully just for now)! 4 stars.
"You kill one guy, one time, and suddenly everyone thinks you need therapy..."
I picked up this book immediately after reading book one, because I was so captivated by Reed and Ellery. They are an amazing duo, with wonderful chemistry, both for solving crimes and in the "will they, won't they" department. Schaffhausen writes in this steady, easy-to-read way that effortlessly brings her characters to life and makes it so easy to flip the pages. Just like the first book, I tore through this one in less than 24 hours.
There are plenty of twists and turns and lots of drama. But there's also a personal and touching element to these books. Ellery and Reed have such a connection. He supposedly rescued her all those years ago, pulling near-dead Ellery from the clutches of a serial killer. But, of course, that experience has formed and hardened her in so many ways. She's a tough cookie. And it's truly just Reed who can see past her outer shell. Ellery will only allow Reed to see little glimpses of her actual self.
The mystery in this book is exemplary. We go back in time to a series of fires in Boston. Even better, it has some ties to Reed's boss, McGreevy, who worked the Boston beat back in the day (see, everything is personal). The more present-day case, Wendy's rapist, fuels Ellery, who feels as if perhaps she is worthless, unable to affect change as a police officer. It's also personal, on a whole different level. Both are compelling. Each kept me guessing and while I had some inkling about the fires, nothing would stop me from frantically turning the pages!
In the end, this was an excellent book. I love the relationship between Ellery and Reed and how it's developing. Both cases were intriguing and kept me hooked from the beginning. I immediately turned to book three, and I'm so sad it's the last one (hopefully just for now)! 4 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Flight (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I’m not good with dramas. I like to watch movies to escape reality and dramas are all about reminding you of the turmoil and awkwardness and unpredictability that is reality. But, only if they’re good. Dramas require an emotional response from the viewer, which can only be achieved through great performances, enhanced by story, music and editing. (don’t quote me I could be missing one). If one or more elements are missing, at best it’s an unexpected comedy, at worst you’ve just wasted time and money that you’ll never get back.
Flight in my opinion delivered. We start off with gratuitous nudity (for me it didn’t add to the story but guys will like it) from flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Valazquez) and a man, Captain Whip Whitacker (Denzel Washington) who’s about to hit his rock bottom. After a night of drinking and snorting some cocaine, together they take to the skies only for it to go horribly wrong, the plane begins an uncontrolled nose dive. Lot’s of close up shots put you right into the aircraft and you almost feel as if you’re on the flight as it’s going down (seriously my heart involuntarily started pounding faster).
Afterwards, the movie really hits its’ stride and gets into the gritty reality of what life can become. Denzel does an excellent job of bringing you in to the internal struggles with his demons; he’s so good in his denial. John Goodman plays a drug dealer Harling Mays, almost as a comic relief which actually works. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a criminal attorney sent to help Cpt Whitacker as questions arise about what really caused the plane to crash. He plays a great attorney, not smarmy, not slick, but intelligent and sharp, and in his own way, caring.
Nicole Maggen (Kelly Reilly), a drug addict who we witness goes through a relapse that puts her into the path of Cpt Whitacker. Co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) was a convincingly green pilot whom I would not want flying any plane I’m in. And flight attendant Margaret Tomason (Tamara Tunie), a good friend of Whitackers for several years and Pilots union rep Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) a long time military buddy who comes back into his life because of the crash. I liked both their performances, they really did great in their supporting rolls; you couldn’t have one without the other.
There is a question of devine intervention and redemption, but I think the movie steers clear of being overly religious. (I could have done without Ken Evans wife, overkill in my opinion and not necessary to the story). Anything more I say will spill the beans on the ending, so I’ll leave you with this; it really is unpredictable, you never quite know what Cpt Whitacker’s going to do until he does it. There are beautiful moments and bittersweet moments that create a powerful, emotional ride that I would recommend to someone who likes a good drama. And, even to people like me, who generally try to avoid them.
Flight in my opinion delivered. We start off with gratuitous nudity (for me it didn’t add to the story but guys will like it) from flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Valazquez) and a man, Captain Whip Whitacker (Denzel Washington) who’s about to hit his rock bottom. After a night of drinking and snorting some cocaine, together they take to the skies only for it to go horribly wrong, the plane begins an uncontrolled nose dive. Lot’s of close up shots put you right into the aircraft and you almost feel as if you’re on the flight as it’s going down (seriously my heart involuntarily started pounding faster).
Afterwards, the movie really hits its’ stride and gets into the gritty reality of what life can become. Denzel does an excellent job of bringing you in to the internal struggles with his demons; he’s so good in his denial. John Goodman plays a drug dealer Harling Mays, almost as a comic relief which actually works. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a criminal attorney sent to help Cpt Whitacker as questions arise about what really caused the plane to crash. He plays a great attorney, not smarmy, not slick, but intelligent and sharp, and in his own way, caring.
Nicole Maggen (Kelly Reilly), a drug addict who we witness goes through a relapse that puts her into the path of Cpt Whitacker. Co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) was a convincingly green pilot whom I would not want flying any plane I’m in. And flight attendant Margaret Tomason (Tamara Tunie), a good friend of Whitackers for several years and Pilots union rep Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) a long time military buddy who comes back into his life because of the crash. I liked both their performances, they really did great in their supporting rolls; you couldn’t have one without the other.
There is a question of devine intervention and redemption, but I think the movie steers clear of being overly religious. (I could have done without Ken Evans wife, overkill in my opinion and not necessary to the story). Anything more I say will spill the beans on the ending, so I’ll leave you with this; it really is unpredictable, you never quite know what Cpt Whitacker’s going to do until he does it. There are beautiful moments and bittersweet moments that create a powerful, emotional ride that I would recommend to someone who likes a good drama. And, even to people like me, who generally try to avoid them.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Adjustment Bureau (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Adjustment Bureau is based on (or it may be more accurate to say, inspired by) the Philip K. Dick short story “Adjustment Team”, and stars Matt Damon as David Norris, a New York politician running for the U.S. Senate and Emily Blunt as Elise Sellas, a professional ballerina.
When David and Elise first meet in the men’s restroom and he doesn’t question her gender I knew this wasn’t going to be the typical boy meets girl story. Just to clarify, I’m not saying she turns out to be a he, I’m just saying it’s good to check out the engine under the hood. But what should have been a once in a restroom… er, lifetime encounter, becomes a second, then a third and… you get the point. Shortly after their second encounter where David finally gets Elise’s name and number written on a business card he walks in on a strange group of well dressed individuals who were what can only be described as “probing” his friends in a conference room. So David does what any sane person would do after witnessing a group probing, he runs (like you wouldn’t? ). After running down a few hallways, he’s captured. Let’s be honest, running down hallways isn’t Oscar material, so I was glad it was short-lived. David learns that these well-dressed individuals work for The Adjustment Bureau.
This secret organization works behind the scenes to ensure the course of destiny, as written by “The Chairman”, goes as planned and they tell him that men’s room ballerinas are not part of the plan for him. At this point I wanted to yell “Screw them, go for the ballerina! They’re bendy!” but before I could, Agent Richardson (played by John Slattery) informs David that if he doesn’t follow the plan they have for him then they will… well, let’s just say they will probe him like nobody’s business. Then before they leave they take the business card with Elise’s name and number on it and before you can say “rooster-block” they throw him to the floor like Chevy Chase impersonating President Ford and disappear.
In time David and Elise are reunited by chance and with some information given to him by his disgruntled Adjustment Bureau ex-caseworker Agent Harry (played by Anthony Mackie), David works hard to overcome the obstacles placed before them by the Adjustment Bureau. But when Agent Thompson (played by Terence Stamp) joins the fray, he tells David what will happen to Elise if he doesn’t leave her.
Does love win in the end, does fate win or are they eaten by the alligators in the New York City sewers? I will tell you, that once again, the alligators did not win. The film does an excellent job of balancing its romance and thriller aspects with just enough humor to compliment the first two aspects, making it a very enjoyable movie for an individual, a couple or a group of friends to see. On a side note, when the film was over I left the movie wanting to buy a suit and I really dislike wearing suits.
When David and Elise first meet in the men’s restroom and he doesn’t question her gender I knew this wasn’t going to be the typical boy meets girl story. Just to clarify, I’m not saying she turns out to be a he, I’m just saying it’s good to check out the engine under the hood. But what should have been a once in a restroom… er, lifetime encounter, becomes a second, then a third and… you get the point. Shortly after their second encounter where David finally gets Elise’s name and number written on a business card he walks in on a strange group of well dressed individuals who were what can only be described as “probing” his friends in a conference room. So David does what any sane person would do after witnessing a group probing, he runs (like you wouldn’t? ). After running down a few hallways, he’s captured. Let’s be honest, running down hallways isn’t Oscar material, so I was glad it was short-lived. David learns that these well-dressed individuals work for The Adjustment Bureau.
This secret organization works behind the scenes to ensure the course of destiny, as written by “The Chairman”, goes as planned and they tell him that men’s room ballerinas are not part of the plan for him. At this point I wanted to yell “Screw them, go for the ballerina! They’re bendy!” but before I could, Agent Richardson (played by John Slattery) informs David that if he doesn’t follow the plan they have for him then they will… well, let’s just say they will probe him like nobody’s business. Then before they leave they take the business card with Elise’s name and number on it and before you can say “rooster-block” they throw him to the floor like Chevy Chase impersonating President Ford and disappear.
In time David and Elise are reunited by chance and with some information given to him by his disgruntled Adjustment Bureau ex-caseworker Agent Harry (played by Anthony Mackie), David works hard to overcome the obstacles placed before them by the Adjustment Bureau. But when Agent Thompson (played by Terence Stamp) joins the fray, he tells David what will happen to Elise if he doesn’t leave her.
Does love win in the end, does fate win or are they eaten by the alligators in the New York City sewers? I will tell you, that once again, the alligators did not win. The film does an excellent job of balancing its romance and thriller aspects with just enough humor to compliment the first two aspects, making it a very enjoyable movie for an individual, a couple or a group of friends to see. On a side note, when the film was over I left the movie wanting to buy a suit and I really dislike wearing suits.
the_mad_meeple (55 KP) rated Arctic Scavengers in Tabletop Games
Feb 19, 2020
Hot Heads in the Ice
It was a thursday night and I was round my mate's house ready for my first ever 'gaming session'. Overwhelmed by all the colourful cardboard I realised my expectations of Monopoly and Cluedo were embarrassingly ill-informed.
Arctic Scavengers, the first and last game of the evening, couldn't have been further from my previous gaming experience. A fantastically thematic and competitive deck-building game, it was love at first fight. Deep into a post-apocalyptic winter wasteland, I was soon digging for medicine I would later use to attract hunters and was recruiting brawlers with my charismatic team leaders. After winning the fourth contested resource (a dog sled to add to my grenade) I was hooked and by the time we had thrashed out our final fight I had completed my online checkout.
Pros:
- Simple card drafting game perfect for new players.
- The theme is excellent and match the components brilliantly.
- The length of the game can be controlled by limiting the number of contested resources, allowing for faster play if required (although not recommended).
- The idea of digging for medicine seems hilarious but deciding whether to keep the shovel or take the net can be game-changing and keeps every decision interesting.
Cons:
- The expansions seem to take away from the core game too much for me adding in too many components which alter the base mechanics too much.
The Game
The game is won by the player who has the most people in their clan by the end of the game - after the last contested resource is won.
Playing best with four players, you are required to develop your initial deck in order to fight other players for contested resources and be the strongest clan among the post apocalyptic wasteland.
During each round a player draws 5 cards and is given the opportunity to perform any of the available actions before deciding whether they want to fight for the available 'contested resource'. Able to complete actions such as digging for junk, recruiting new members to their clan or drawing other cards from their hand, Arctic Scavengers is a game where you have to balance the potential to draw a useles refuge, who offers nothing in a fight but increases the size of your clan, with the need to draw brawlers for the fight. Do you choose the versatile scavengers who can do everything, providing you with a variety of options, or go big and recruit thugs for the next fight.
A brilliantly varied game Arctic Scavengers can be played differently every time the lid comes off and no matter who you play against you see something new. I can honestly say that everyone I have played this with have loved it and it is off the shalf at every games night.
I realise that this game will often be compared to other self contained deck-builders such as Dominion and Clank but this is by far my favourite of these and has permanent residence on my shelf for the foreseeable future.
Arctic Scavengers, the first and last game of the evening, couldn't have been further from my previous gaming experience. A fantastically thematic and competitive deck-building game, it was love at first fight. Deep into a post-apocalyptic winter wasteland, I was soon digging for medicine I would later use to attract hunters and was recruiting brawlers with my charismatic team leaders. After winning the fourth contested resource (a dog sled to add to my grenade) I was hooked and by the time we had thrashed out our final fight I had completed my online checkout.
Pros:
- Simple card drafting game perfect for new players.
- The theme is excellent and match the components brilliantly.
- The length of the game can be controlled by limiting the number of contested resources, allowing for faster play if required (although not recommended).
- The idea of digging for medicine seems hilarious but deciding whether to keep the shovel or take the net can be game-changing and keeps every decision interesting.
Cons:
- The expansions seem to take away from the core game too much for me adding in too many components which alter the base mechanics too much.
The Game
The game is won by the player who has the most people in their clan by the end of the game - after the last contested resource is won.
Playing best with four players, you are required to develop your initial deck in order to fight other players for contested resources and be the strongest clan among the post apocalyptic wasteland.
During each round a player draws 5 cards and is given the opportunity to perform any of the available actions before deciding whether they want to fight for the available 'contested resource'. Able to complete actions such as digging for junk, recruiting new members to their clan or drawing other cards from their hand, Arctic Scavengers is a game where you have to balance the potential to draw a useles refuge, who offers nothing in a fight but increases the size of your clan, with the need to draw brawlers for the fight. Do you choose the versatile scavengers who can do everything, providing you with a variety of options, or go big and recruit thugs for the next fight.
A brilliantly varied game Arctic Scavengers can be played differently every time the lid comes off and no matter who you play against you see something new. I can honestly say that everyone I have played this with have loved it and it is off the shalf at every games night.
I realise that this game will often be compared to other self contained deck-builders such as Dominion and Clank but this is by far my favourite of these and has permanent residence on my shelf for the foreseeable future.
Sentence Reading Magic Deluxe for Schools-Reading Short Vowel CVC words
Education and Games
App
Sentence Reading Magic provides the missing link between reading words and reading books-reading...
Phantasy Star II ™ Classic
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
App
An era-defining RPG. SEGA’s landmark sci-fi epic comes to mobile. Play for free and experience one...