Search
Search results
Ross (3284 KP) rated Doors: Field of Blood in Books
Apr 8, 2021
Finally at an end
This the third and final book in this set (though they aren't to be read in any specific order) was consistent with the first two books. The beginning, shared, quarter sets up an intriguing tale of a group of disparate experts tasked with rescuing the missing daughter of a rich businessman, who has disappeared after going through a mysterious door.
This book sees the group enter a door that takes them to an alternate version of middle-ages France/Germany and the reign of the Frankian empire. As with the World War II element of the second book, this was more or less a passing interest to the book rather than a key element of the story.
The group have found themselves in a version of history where women rule the empire and generally take positions of power, and a building conspiracy among men seeks to reverse this and look to change this in the history books. For me, this was the most interesting aspect of the book, and one that could be plausible. Sadly, I couldn't see past some modern day people apparently conversing comfortably with people from the 9th century without issue, and there being no attempt to address this at all.
Meanwhile in the real world, we learn more about the doors, their use and the mysterious agency controlling them. We learn more in this one book than the other two put together, and between the three we now have a good amount of knowledge about these portals. Some aspects of their use don't add up though, as with any sort of time travel/portal notion.
The book ends fairly abruptly with a long voyage which is skipped over in a very 'sod it, that's the word count reached, wrap it up' style.
Overall, I was very disappointed with these books. While I liked having to piece together things from each book and start to get a feel for the world, I felt so much of it fell short. As with the other two books, it offered so much promise but fell flat.
This book sees the group enter a door that takes them to an alternate version of middle-ages France/Germany and the reign of the Frankian empire. As with the World War II element of the second book, this was more or less a passing interest to the book rather than a key element of the story.
The group have found themselves in a version of history where women rule the empire and generally take positions of power, and a building conspiracy among men seeks to reverse this and look to change this in the history books. For me, this was the most interesting aspect of the book, and one that could be plausible. Sadly, I couldn't see past some modern day people apparently conversing comfortably with people from the 9th century without issue, and there being no attempt to address this at all.
Meanwhile in the real world, we learn more about the doors, their use and the mysterious agency controlling them. We learn more in this one book than the other two put together, and between the three we now have a good amount of knowledge about these portals. Some aspects of their use don't add up though, as with any sort of time travel/portal notion.
The book ends fairly abruptly with a long voyage which is skipped over in a very 'sod it, that's the word count reached, wrap it up' style.
Overall, I was very disappointed with these books. While I liked having to piece together things from each book and start to get a feel for the world, I felt so much of it fell short. As with the other two books, it offered so much promise but fell flat.
Siddur HD for iPad
Reference and Book
App
Special version of the popular Siddur for iPhone now designed in HD for the iPad. Take your weekday...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Anchorman - The Legend Of Ron Burgundy (2004) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
How in the world do you review a film like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy? The film is meant to be as ridiculous as possible with outrageous performances and a paper thin storyline; half of its charm is its overuse of improvisation. You either found its absurd nature hilarious and consider it one of the funniest films ever (and completely ignore the horrid sequel) or hate it for being a nonsensical comedy filled with a cast of immature people who can’t hold a straight face for a single take. It’s honestly difficult to argue either perspective, but the 20-year-old version of this critic who saw this film and adored it would drop dead if he found out that it doesn’t hold up as well nearly 15 years later.
It’s 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and it’s something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that you’ll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, “You will eat that cat poop!” With a comedy this spontaneous, it’s difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isn’t trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrell’s on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrell’s films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrell’s career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why it’s as funny as it is. There isn’t a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because you’re loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; it’s a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. It’s like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You don’t watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. It’s also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
It’s 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and it’s something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that you’ll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, “You will eat that cat poop!” With a comedy this spontaneous, it’s difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isn’t trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrell’s on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrell’s films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrell’s career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why it’s as funny as it is. There isn’t a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because you’re loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; it’s a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. It’s like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You don’t watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. It’s also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
TherapyChat - Online Therapy
Medical and Stickers
App
What is TherapyChat? TherapyChat helps you to improve your happiness. When something worries...
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Crescendo (Hush, Hush, #2) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I waited quite a while for my tiny, local library to get this book in for me, and I devoured it in about a day and a half. Ironically, I was a little disappointed with the way it turned out in the end, as I do not really consider that much of an ending at all. It felt more like one of those cliff-hangers television writers use when they have run out of air time. But I am getting ahead of myself.
The book flowed much like the first book in the series. It opened with a scene that takes place in an undetermined time period in relation to the previous book. Then it finally returns to Nora and her life, which is assumed to be perfect since Patch has become her own personal guardian angel. But as usual, unexplained events happen and Patch keeps Nora in the dark. Nora behaves in her predictable, highly emotional ways and gets herself in one bad situation after another. I could not help thinking that so much of Nora and Patch's problems could have been avoided if they both would have been completely honest with each other from the beginning.
Because the book is told mostly through Nora's viewpoint, I felt as much in the dark about what was really happening as Nora did, which became very frustrating after several hundred pages. Even after the book ended, I still had a number of questions regarding the Nephilim secret society, such as the deal with the multiple rings. Hopefully, these will be answer in the final book, Silence. I did find the character of Scott growing on me towards the end, as it became obvious how much of a victim he was, which made me wonder how many more there were like him. Marcie was just as annoying as ever, though I guessed what her problem with Nora was very early in the book, which only created more unanswered questions. And really, how hard would it have been for Nora to just read the diary? That drove me bonkers.
On the whole, as much as I loved the first book, this book was a distant second in many ways. I can only hope that the concluding book fixes what was wrong with this book.
The book flowed much like the first book in the series. It opened with a scene that takes place in an undetermined time period in relation to the previous book. Then it finally returns to Nora and her life, which is assumed to be perfect since Patch has become her own personal guardian angel. But as usual, unexplained events happen and Patch keeps Nora in the dark. Nora behaves in her predictable, highly emotional ways and gets herself in one bad situation after another. I could not help thinking that so much of Nora and Patch's problems could have been avoided if they both would have been completely honest with each other from the beginning.
Because the book is told mostly through Nora's viewpoint, I felt as much in the dark about what was really happening as Nora did, which became very frustrating after several hundred pages. Even after the book ended, I still had a number of questions regarding the Nephilim secret society, such as the deal with the multiple rings. Hopefully, these will be answer in the final book, Silence. I did find the character of Scott growing on me towards the end, as it became obvious how much of a victim he was, which made me wonder how many more there were like him. Marcie was just as annoying as ever, though I guessed what her problem with Nora was very early in the book, which only created more unanswered questions. And really, how hard would it have been for Nora to just read the diary? That drove me bonkers.
On the whole, as much as I loved the first book, this book was a distant second in many ways. I can only hope that the concluding book fixes what was wrong with this book.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Face Charts - Continuity Software
Lifestyle and Photo & Video
App
Face charts. As makeup artists, they are an essential part of our day. Lose the folder full of...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mitchells vs The Machines (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Brilliantly original animation (1 more)
Fantastic laugh-out-loud gags throughout, many with a movie nerd bias
Dog-Pig-Dog-Pig-Loaf of Bread… KERBOOM!
Katie Mitchell (voiced by Abbi Jacobson) dreams of being a great film director (joining her icons on her version of Mount Rushmore!). She's about to travel to a west-coast film college when her dad Rick (Danny Mcbride) decides to cancel her air ticket and try to re-engage with her through one last epic road trip. Together with wife Linda (Maya Rudolph), dinosaur-mad son Aaron (director Michael Rianda) and cross-eyed pug Monchi (Doug the Pug!) they set off on their journey.
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The Seven Deaths Of Evelyn Hardcastle in Books
Jul 31, 2018
This book is an all-singing, all-dancing time-travel-mystery-thriller - the plot is simultaneously absurd and delightful.
The action kicks off immediately when the Protagonist wakes up with no recollection of who he is, and witnesses a murder. But events take a stranger turn the following day when he wakes up as someone else, replaying the events of the previous day.
Effectively, the Protagonist takes the roles of several different versions of himself in randomly assigned host bodies, replaying the events of the same day over and over. His predicament is a form of rehabilitative imprisonment, and he soon learns he can only escape this predicament by solving the murder.
There are plots and sub plots galore, with juicy gossip at every turn, and I revelled in it! With so much going on, I had no pause to try and figure out who the murderer was. It became quite hard to keep up even before I had reached the halfway mark. As I went along the book, I found that the author was making reference to a lot of things that had slipped my mind.
The Protagonist struggles with ascertaining and maintaining his true identity and struggles to ascertain and assure himself of who’s a friend and who’s a foe. He tries to leave clues for himself and his helpers but his host bodies alternatively provide assistance and impediments.
The Protagonist solves the central murder with 20% of the book left to go - he's still on a mission to do the save the others in his situation. And with 10% of the book left he sets out to solve another murder on the same premises.
The author uses an old fashioned but bearable writing style. One thing I particularly enjoyed about the book was how the soul of the Protagonist reacts in the bodies of different hosts, all with different tendencies and propensities.
It is a pleasure to read, and I may have enjoyed it more had I been able to keep track of the minutiae.
You can check out more of my book reviews on Wordpress or Facebook:
https://bookblogbycari.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/bookblogbycari/
The action kicks off immediately when the Protagonist wakes up with no recollection of who he is, and witnesses a murder. But events take a stranger turn the following day when he wakes up as someone else, replaying the events of the previous day.
Effectively, the Protagonist takes the roles of several different versions of himself in randomly assigned host bodies, replaying the events of the same day over and over. His predicament is a form of rehabilitative imprisonment, and he soon learns he can only escape this predicament by solving the murder.
There are plots and sub plots galore, with juicy gossip at every turn, and I revelled in it! With so much going on, I had no pause to try and figure out who the murderer was. It became quite hard to keep up even before I had reached the halfway mark. As I went along the book, I found that the author was making reference to a lot of things that had slipped my mind.
The Protagonist struggles with ascertaining and maintaining his true identity and struggles to ascertain and assure himself of who’s a friend and who’s a foe. He tries to leave clues for himself and his helpers but his host bodies alternatively provide assistance and impediments.
The Protagonist solves the central murder with 20% of the book left to go - he's still on a mission to do the save the others in his situation. And with 10% of the book left he sets out to solve another murder on the same premises.
The author uses an old fashioned but bearable writing style. One thing I particularly enjoyed about the book was how the soul of the Protagonist reacts in the bodies of different hosts, all with different tendencies and propensities.
It is a pleasure to read, and I may have enjoyed it more had I been able to keep track of the minutiae.
You can check out more of my book reviews on Wordpress or Facebook:
https://bookblogbycari.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/bookblogbycari/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Happy Death Day (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Groundhog Day, but a little more kick ass. Theresa wakes up on her birthday on Monday, September 18th in a strangers bed. She heads back to her house dismissing everyone she sees, she throws out her roommate's cupcake, she carries on with her professor, and then gets murdered by a hooded figure wearing the mask of their campus mascot.
Groundhog Day, but a little more kick ass. Theresa wakes up on her birthday on Monday, September 18th in a strangers bed... well you get the idea. She runs through her day, but instead of heading to the tunnel that led to her death the night before (tonight?) she heads back to her sorority house where, you've guessed it, she gets murdered.
As she loops through her birthday over and over she gets to know Carter, the guy who's bedroom she keeps waking up in, and he encourages her to try and work out what's going on in the hopes that she might be able to change the outcome.
Yet another one that I hadn't seen anything about until a couple of days before I saw it... and you know what? It was really entertaining. It's down as a slasher movie, but there's a bit of everything in it. I jumped in my seat, which doesn't happen very often. I just really enjoyed it. I was so wrapped up in it that I didn't even see the twist coming.
My only quibble, and this really isn't a major thing (I noticed it, so for me to do that I guess it is a little bit major), was when she was admitted to hospital. Her professor/doctor/lover (talk about conflict of interest) says that she's showing signs of trauma, which as we and she knows is because of how she died in the last loop. If she's showing signs of that trauma, and she says that she's feeling weaker with each loop... then... well... how does she make it too the end of the movie? Admittedly she's going to be running on a lot of adrenaline, but... well, it bugged me a little.
Groundhog Day, but a little more kick ass. Theresa wakes up on her birthday on Monday, September 18th in a strangers bed... well you get the idea. She runs through her day, but instead of heading to the tunnel that led to her death the night before (tonight?) she heads back to her sorority house where, you've guessed it, she gets murdered.
As she loops through her birthday over and over she gets to know Carter, the guy who's bedroom she keeps waking up in, and he encourages her to try and work out what's going on in the hopes that she might be able to change the outcome.
Yet another one that I hadn't seen anything about until a couple of days before I saw it... and you know what? It was really entertaining. It's down as a slasher movie, but there's a bit of everything in it. I jumped in my seat, which doesn't happen very often. I just really enjoyed it. I was so wrapped up in it that I didn't even see the twist coming.
My only quibble, and this really isn't a major thing (I noticed it, so for me to do that I guess it is a little bit major), was when she was admitted to hospital. Her professor/doctor/lover (talk about conflict of interest) says that she's showing signs of trauma, which as we and she knows is because of how she died in the last loop. If she's showing signs of that trauma, and she says that she's feeling weaker with each loop... then... well... how does she make it too the end of the movie? Admittedly she's going to be running on a lot of adrenaline, but... well, it bugged me a little.