Search
Search results
Ross (3284 KP) rated Rogue: Untouched in Books
May 11, 2021
Great X-person origin story+
Anyone who has seen the first X-men film will be aware of Rogue's backstory to an extent - an unfortunate teenage snog leaving a boy in a coma and resulting in her spending all her time isolated from touching others and spending her allowance on gloves.
In that film, Rogue is played by the wonderful Anna Paquin, who also starred as Sookie Stackhouse in True Blood. It both helped and confused me that in this book Rogue is waiting tables in a smalltown diner, blurring the lines between Rogue and Sookie for me. I kept expecting a vampire to walk through the diner doors. Instead, we are treated to the superb cajun Gambit, my favourite character from the early 90s cartoon series. He helps Rogue (Anna Marie) to discover that she has some mutant powers and how they could be used.
At the same time, Rogue meets two mysterious ladies who are seeking new students for their academy and encourage her to take a chance and give up her waiting career.
Rogue then finds herself embroiled in Gambit's past exploits with a mutant slave trader and has to quickly learn to use her powers (and those of the mutants around her) to escape their capture.
The book flows well, with plenty of character development for Rogue and a satisfying cast of familiar and new (to me at least!) mutants along the way - including one late reveal that I'm sure all readers will see coming a mile off.
While the book never dragged and the pace was great, I did struggle to get through this book as quickly as I had hoped. This is more down to things going on outwith my reading schedule (stupidly listening to 500 albums, marking professional exams and the kids' school holidays). However, while I can't quite put my finger on anything specific, the book didn't quite drag me back in for a sneaky 10 minutes during the day.
I did enjoy this book, as with some of the other Marvel novels issued recently, and would recommend it to anyone looking for something a bit super-hero-y but in a novel.
I received a free advance copy of this book from the publishers and netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
In that film, Rogue is played by the wonderful Anna Paquin, who also starred as Sookie Stackhouse in True Blood. It both helped and confused me that in this book Rogue is waiting tables in a smalltown diner, blurring the lines between Rogue and Sookie for me. I kept expecting a vampire to walk through the diner doors. Instead, we are treated to the superb cajun Gambit, my favourite character from the early 90s cartoon series. He helps Rogue (Anna Marie) to discover that she has some mutant powers and how they could be used.
At the same time, Rogue meets two mysterious ladies who are seeking new students for their academy and encourage her to take a chance and give up her waiting career.
Rogue then finds herself embroiled in Gambit's past exploits with a mutant slave trader and has to quickly learn to use her powers (and those of the mutants around her) to escape their capture.
The book flows well, with plenty of character development for Rogue and a satisfying cast of familiar and new (to me at least!) mutants along the way - including one late reveal that I'm sure all readers will see coming a mile off.
While the book never dragged and the pace was great, I did struggle to get through this book as quickly as I had hoped. This is more down to things going on outwith my reading schedule (stupidly listening to 500 albums, marking professional exams and the kids' school holidays). However, while I can't quite put my finger on anything specific, the book didn't quite drag me back in for a sneaky 10 minutes during the day.
I did enjoy this book, as with some of the other Marvel novels issued recently, and would recommend it to anyone looking for something a bit super-hero-y but in a novel.
I received a free advance copy of this book from the publishers and netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Code For WhatsApp - Password Passcode & Fingerprint Security for imported messages - WhatsLock App Locker
Social Networking and Productivity
App
Disclaimer: This app does not add Fingerprint security to other apps, it helps import and secure...
GymGoal Pro
Health & Fitness and Reference
App
Praised by pros and trainers as the most capable and flexible workout planner and tracker. •...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Cutaway in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Virginia Knightly is a busy TV news producer. She's constantly juggling a million stories, cultivating her on-air talent, and appeasing whatever news director has been currently assigned to "revamp" her station and raise ratings. It's a typical day for Virginia when she sees a flyer come across her desk for a missing woman. But something in the woman's eyes in the fuzzy black and white poster haunt Virginia, and she becomes oddly attached to the case of Evelyn "Evie" Carney, a young, married lawyer who disappeared after dining with her husband (and informing him she wanted a divorce). It seems as if the DC police are more involved in Evie's case than Virginia would expect: perhaps even the Department of Justice. What happened to Evie, and is Virginia safe looking into her disappearance?
This seems to be yet another novel where I'm a bit of the minority here, but I just could not get into this one. The premise seemed intriguing (and of course, it was compared to all the popular thrillers du jour, which really doesn't do books favors these days). At times, I almost gave up on this book, which is not like me. First of all, instead of just focusing on the plot of Evie's disappearance, there is a ton (I mean a ton) of time focused on the in-fighting and arguing at the news station, which majorly detracts from the actual mystery plot. I found it juvenile and irritating. Because of this, quickly, I didn't like or care for any of the characters or their relationships whatsoever. Unfortunately, that never really changed. So much seemed to be going on in the book (including Virginia's own personal relationships: with the lead cop investigating Evie's case, her father, the main talent at the station) but so little of it related to Evelyn and her disappearance. A lot of loose ends never seemed to be tied up. I often found myself cringing at the dialogue.
It's sad, because, at times, the actual plot relating to Evelyn is good. I continually found myself wishing there was more of it. There's also a lot of telling versus showing, but I did find myself getting into the various pieces related to Evie. (It certainly makes you hope nothing bad ever happens to you, between the issues at the police department and various levels of justice.) I enjoyed that the story was set in a familiar location for me (Washington, DC). I did guess many of the main plot points, which was a little disappointing, including something you could see coming from the beginning of the story. The whole thing is so convoluted, with so many personal entanglements thrown in, that it's hard to believe at times. Virginia's obsession over Evie's disappearance is strange, and although a rather unbelievable reason will be given near the end, you spend the entire wondering why she's so fanatical. Apparently, while working in news, Kovac covered the Chandra Levy story, and you can see that in this tale at times. This is definitely a first novel, and there are glimmers of hopes for a second. Unfortunately, this one just wasn't for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/21/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This seems to be yet another novel where I'm a bit of the minority here, but I just could not get into this one. The premise seemed intriguing (and of course, it was compared to all the popular thrillers du jour, which really doesn't do books favors these days). At times, I almost gave up on this book, which is not like me. First of all, instead of just focusing on the plot of Evie's disappearance, there is a ton (I mean a ton) of time focused on the in-fighting and arguing at the news station, which majorly detracts from the actual mystery plot. I found it juvenile and irritating. Because of this, quickly, I didn't like or care for any of the characters or their relationships whatsoever. Unfortunately, that never really changed. So much seemed to be going on in the book (including Virginia's own personal relationships: with the lead cop investigating Evie's case, her father, the main talent at the station) but so little of it related to Evelyn and her disappearance. A lot of loose ends never seemed to be tied up. I often found myself cringing at the dialogue.
It's sad, because, at times, the actual plot relating to Evelyn is good. I continually found myself wishing there was more of it. There's also a lot of telling versus showing, but I did find myself getting into the various pieces related to Evie. (It certainly makes you hope nothing bad ever happens to you, between the issues at the police department and various levels of justice.) I enjoyed that the story was set in a familiar location for me (Washington, DC). I did guess many of the main plot points, which was a little disappointing, including something you could see coming from the beginning of the story. The whole thing is so convoluted, with so many personal entanglements thrown in, that it's hard to believe at times. Virginia's obsession over Evie's disappearance is strange, and although a rather unbelievable reason will be given near the end, you spend the entire wondering why she's so fanatical. Apparently, while working in news, Kovac covered the Chandra Levy story, and you can see that in this tale at times. This is definitely a first novel, and there are glimmers of hopes for a second. Unfortunately, this one just wasn't for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/21/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 year’s old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
San Francisco 49ers: From Kezar to Levi's
Book
A franchise legacy book that celebrates the newest home of the San Francisco 49ers and explores the...
NLP Magazine: Unwrap Neuro Linguistic Programming
Magazines & Newspapers and Lifestyle
App
An Excellent Resource For The NLP Student, Practitioner or Curious Individual Where You Can Find The...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mountain Between Us (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film not quite sure what it’s trying to be.
Idris Elba after scoring a mammoth hit with UK TV’s “Luther” has really struggled to make a breakthrough as a leading man into A-grade movies. Although he’s had some strong supporting roles (“Molly’s Game” and “Star Trek Beyond” for example) and small bit parts in the Marvel universe, when he has landed a lead role they are in films best forgotton (e.g. “Bastille Day”; “The Dark Tower”). This is seldom down to his performance. Here he is given more of a chance to shine, in what is almost a two-hander with Kate Winslet for most of the film. And he is the best thing in the film: lots of the brooding look that he is so famous for.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Up (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Carl Fredricksen is a balloon salesman who has always wanted to have that one big adventure ever since he was a little boy. As a boy, he idolized the then famous explorer, Charles Muntz. He's now 78-years-old and the odds are against him in having that adventure this late in his life until one fateful day. When Carl is left with no other option than to leave his home, he ties thousands of balloons to his house and literally floats away. He heads to South America just like a certain special someone who used to be in Carl's life would've wanted it. A wilderness explorer named Russell who's looking to get his "helping the elderly" badge is accidentally brought along on Carl's adventure. Carl soon figures out that even though keeping his word and going on an adventure he promised to take (crossed his heart) is something to be proud of, that particular adventure will eventually end and he'll have to rummage out on his own.
Pixar always seems to release one of the best films each and every year. This year is no exception. Up is able to take its audience through so many ups and downs throughout its running time. It makes your heart heavy in the first ten to fifteen minutes before the actual story begins, then the rest of the film seems to juggle its audience between humor, excitement, and being genuinely heartfelt. Pixar films seem to have this ability to accomplish more than other films. The writing is always extremely solid and the film is always built around an incredibly creative idea. It's like a Pixar film holds your emotions in the palm of its hand. Every emotion you have is a labeled button on the remote in this imaginary hand and Pixar can access these emotions at the simple push of a button. In fact, Pixar is at its strongest when there is no dialogue at all. The first half of WALL-E is a perfect example, but the short shown before Up (Partly Cloudy) is another great example. There's no dialogue at all, but my eyes were welling up before it was all said and done. When the credits roll to a Pixar film, a sense of fulfillment washes over its viewers. They're left with that warm fuzzy feeling that many films only dream of leaving their audience with.
There's nothing else that can really be said about the animation in this film that people aren't already expecting. It's top notch as the animation is fluid, character features (such as hair) look realistic (Carl grows a five o'clock shadow by the time the third day in Paradise Falls rolls around), and everything is just so colorful and vibrant. While knowing full well it's an animated feature, characters seem to jump off the screen and scenery looks like what would be found in actual wildlife. The 3-D was a nice touch, but isn't necessary to enjoying the film to its full extent. Although seeing 3-D animated characters in a 3-D world in actual 3-D really seemed to fit like a glove.
Each character is given just the right amount of screen time in the film to make its audience really care about them. Russell has this whole back story as to why he wants his "helping the elderly" badge, "Kevin" (the giant, colorful snipe) really just squawks and makes weird noises but is actually just trying to get home to serve its real purpose, and Dug (the dog with the collar that enables it to talk) is the outcast of his pack but pretty much steals whatever scene he is in. The whole story is built around Carl, so caring about him is pretty much a given after that heartbreaking opening that was mentioned earlier. The whole film is filled with oddball characters that all have their own quirks and gags (SQUIRREL!) that you really want nothing more than to see more of each and every one of them.
Up is one of the year's best films and will more than likely be on most best of lists by the time this year comes to a close. It is a family film, but it generally has something to offer for everybody. It is definitely the type of film to see to put anyone in a better mood and put a smile on your face. Up is a whimsical and heartwarming animated feature that's incredibly fun for anyone.
Pixar always seems to release one of the best films each and every year. This year is no exception. Up is able to take its audience through so many ups and downs throughout its running time. It makes your heart heavy in the first ten to fifteen minutes before the actual story begins, then the rest of the film seems to juggle its audience between humor, excitement, and being genuinely heartfelt. Pixar films seem to have this ability to accomplish more than other films. The writing is always extremely solid and the film is always built around an incredibly creative idea. It's like a Pixar film holds your emotions in the palm of its hand. Every emotion you have is a labeled button on the remote in this imaginary hand and Pixar can access these emotions at the simple push of a button. In fact, Pixar is at its strongest when there is no dialogue at all. The first half of WALL-E is a perfect example, but the short shown before Up (Partly Cloudy) is another great example. There's no dialogue at all, but my eyes were welling up before it was all said and done. When the credits roll to a Pixar film, a sense of fulfillment washes over its viewers. They're left with that warm fuzzy feeling that many films only dream of leaving their audience with.
There's nothing else that can really be said about the animation in this film that people aren't already expecting. It's top notch as the animation is fluid, character features (such as hair) look realistic (Carl grows a five o'clock shadow by the time the third day in Paradise Falls rolls around), and everything is just so colorful and vibrant. While knowing full well it's an animated feature, characters seem to jump off the screen and scenery looks like what would be found in actual wildlife. The 3-D was a nice touch, but isn't necessary to enjoying the film to its full extent. Although seeing 3-D animated characters in a 3-D world in actual 3-D really seemed to fit like a glove.
Each character is given just the right amount of screen time in the film to make its audience really care about them. Russell has this whole back story as to why he wants his "helping the elderly" badge, "Kevin" (the giant, colorful snipe) really just squawks and makes weird noises but is actually just trying to get home to serve its real purpose, and Dug (the dog with the collar that enables it to talk) is the outcast of his pack but pretty much steals whatever scene he is in. The whole story is built around Carl, so caring about him is pretty much a given after that heartbreaking opening that was mentioned earlier. The whole film is filled with oddball characters that all have their own quirks and gags (SQUIRREL!) that you really want nothing more than to see more of each and every one of them.
Up is one of the year's best films and will more than likely be on most best of lists by the time this year comes to a close. It is a family film, but it generally has something to offer for everybody. It is definitely the type of film to see to put anyone in a better mood and put a smile on your face. Up is a whimsical and heartwarming animated feature that's incredibly fun for anyone.