Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Ten years is a long time in Hollywood. Ten years ago, to this day Avatar was yet to be released to the unsuspecting masses, with Titanic still reigning supreme over the global box-office and debutant director Ruben Fleischer surprised the cinema-going public with Zombieland.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
II
If I Were You (Inside Out, #1)
9.3
Rate It
Book
How it all started… One day I was a high school teacher on summer break, leading a relatively...
Pocket Yoga
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
With Pocket Yoga you can keep up with your practice at your own pace in the comforts of your own...
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Bone Dressing (Book 1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I got this as a read to review, and it goes without saying (especially once you've read my review!) that what I am about to write is completely honest. I don't think I can explain my feelings about this book without letting spoilers slip, so please beware!
Unfortunately, unlike the <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/dead-letter-office/">first book</a> I received to review, I really didn't like this story, and I won't be reading the next books in the series. Part of the premise wasn't bad - a 17-year-old girl, Syd, goes back to a previous life and discovers she has an ability to shapeshift into 5 different animals - but there are many flaws that made it a challenge to read.
To start with, the premise I mentioned above was bogged down with so many other storylines trying to demand attention. There's a sexually harassing, paedophile teacher; issues with her dead parents (which never actually goes anywhere); boy issues (which I'll discuss later); and probably several other things I genuinely don't care about.
Then, there's Sydney. I don't think I've ever finished a book with a main character as unlikeable as her. Now, I understand she misses her parents (who died 7 years previously), but from what the story says, she has been with her foster parents ever since, and they treat her as good parents should, so I don't understand the amount of anger that spews from her for about 80% of the time she's appearing as Syd (as opposed to Rachel).
If you've read any of the reviews on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; before, you may have realised that I hate books that completely devolve from reality, especially when it comes to love. Syd mentions at the beginning of the book that she's had dates with 'hot' guys, but that she's put off as soon as they open their mouths. Then, one day, she's met by Beau (at the friggin' cemetery, by her parents' graves), and despite his stalkerish (and is it just me to think vampiric?) tendencies, she falls head over heels in love with him. Well, duh. She then has her life threatened by a panther, and decides to take that moment to declare how she feels about him. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that's not what I'd do.
When Syd goes back to her previous life, as Rachel, she again is madly in love with a man named Jesse. This section of the book is slightly better written in that Rachel has more vulnerability than Syd, and the events are more exciting and less jumbled. I was intrigued as to how Syd could help Rachel change the events (which was hinted at by Beau), and can't help feeling that if there had been more of this and a LOT less lead-up, I would have enjoyed the book more. The end of the book finished on a cliffhanger, with nothing of importance having been 'tied up', and expecting the reader to buy the next book in order to carry on.
Then there's Mr Askew. I won't waste my breath on this: he is a paedophile that sexually harasses Syd in front of the whole class. Worst student in the world or not, Sydney could get him done - no bargaining. Plus, why have her start at burning down the school only to not refer back to what was already mentioned when it happens at the end?!
In general, an annoyance throughout the book was the amount of metaphors and adjectives used for everything. If there's one word used to describe something, there can be three, appears to be this book's motto! Metaphors can be amazing, but they were taken too far here. (This blogger <a href="http://ashleychristiano.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/bone-dressing-by-michelle-brooks/">here</a>; agrees!) Picture this type of language every other page or so:
<blockquote><i>"I could feel the waves of an overwhelming heartbreak ravaging my body, taking hold as if preparing to replace every part of me with an ache that could never be soothed. Somewhere in the distance I heard agonizing sobbing, sobbing too painful for a mere girl to endure."</i> </blockquote>
Yeah. So, it's safe to say I won't be recommending this one.
Unfortunately, unlike the <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/dead-letter-office/">first book</a> I received to review, I really didn't like this story, and I won't be reading the next books in the series. Part of the premise wasn't bad - a 17-year-old girl, Syd, goes back to a previous life and discovers she has an ability to shapeshift into 5 different animals - but there are many flaws that made it a challenge to read.
To start with, the premise I mentioned above was bogged down with so many other storylines trying to demand attention. There's a sexually harassing, paedophile teacher; issues with her dead parents (which never actually goes anywhere); boy issues (which I'll discuss later); and probably several other things I genuinely don't care about.
Then, there's Sydney. I don't think I've ever finished a book with a main character as unlikeable as her. Now, I understand she misses her parents (who died 7 years previously), but from what the story says, she has been with her foster parents ever since, and they treat her as good parents should, so I don't understand the amount of anger that spews from her for about 80% of the time she's appearing as Syd (as opposed to Rachel).
If you've read any of the reviews on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; before, you may have realised that I hate books that completely devolve from reality, especially when it comes to love. Syd mentions at the beginning of the book that she's had dates with 'hot' guys, but that she's put off as soon as they open their mouths. Then, one day, she's met by Beau (at the friggin' cemetery, by her parents' graves), and despite his stalkerish (and is it just me to think vampiric?) tendencies, she falls head over heels in love with him. Well, duh. She then has her life threatened by a panther, and decides to take that moment to declare how she feels about him. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that's not what I'd do.
When Syd goes back to her previous life, as Rachel, she again is madly in love with a man named Jesse. This section of the book is slightly better written in that Rachel has more vulnerability than Syd, and the events are more exciting and less jumbled. I was intrigued as to how Syd could help Rachel change the events (which was hinted at by Beau), and can't help feeling that if there had been more of this and a LOT less lead-up, I would have enjoyed the book more. The end of the book finished on a cliffhanger, with nothing of importance having been 'tied up', and expecting the reader to buy the next book in order to carry on.
Then there's Mr Askew. I won't waste my breath on this: he is a paedophile that sexually harasses Syd in front of the whole class. Worst student in the world or not, Sydney could get him done - no bargaining. Plus, why have her start at burning down the school only to not refer back to what was already mentioned when it happens at the end?!
In general, an annoyance throughout the book was the amount of metaphors and adjectives used for everything. If there's one word used to describe something, there can be three, appears to be this book's motto! Metaphors can be amazing, but they were taken too far here. (This blogger <a href="http://ashleychristiano.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/bone-dressing-by-michelle-brooks/">here</a>; agrees!) Picture this type of language every other page or so:
<blockquote><i>"I could feel the waves of an overwhelming heartbreak ravaging my body, taking hold as if preparing to replace every part of me with an ache that could never be soothed. Somewhere in the distance I heard agonizing sobbing, sobbing too painful for a mere girl to endure."</i> </blockquote>
Yeah. So, it's safe to say I won't be recommending this one.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Wither (The Chemical Garden, #1) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The world that Lauren DeStefano builds in this book combines several dystopian concepts - genetic engineering and reproduction, a virus of epic proportions, anarchy and survival of the fittest. 70 years ago mankind finds a way to make "perfect" babies, and then their babies suffer the consequences - death at 25 for men and 20 for women - with no cure on the horizon. Prostitution, polygamy, human experimentation, wide-scale murder, the prevalence of orphanages, and a country divided on whether mankind is worth saving are all issues in the plot. Plus, all of this takes place after a world war has destroyed all but North America - or so the history goes.
The main character, Rhine Ellery, is forced into a polygamous marriage at the age of 16 to the rich Linden, age 21, along with the flighty 14-year-old Cecily and ex-prostitute, 18-year-old Jenna. Rhine's main goal is escape, but each girl in the marriage has her own motivations and goals. I found their relationships with one another far more interesting than each one's relationship with Linden. Poor Linden lives under the illusions that his aging father feeds him while suffering from the loss of his first love, Rose. While Rhine makes part of her goal to avoid consummating the marriage with Linden, her sister wives have other ideas, but ironically, jealousy among the wives is not the green-eyed monster that I think many would expect. While Cecily is typically self-absorbed and high maintenance, she still wants her sister-wives to bear children, and even Jenna, who hates Linden from the first day, sees no hypocrisy in sharing a bed with him. I also admired Rhine for her extreme patience and endurance with Cecily's immature and naive behavior, though I don't think I would have chosen denial over full disclosure to both Cecily and Linden.
Rhine's secret relationship seems to find it's power in free-formed friendship, without any expectations or requirements. Simply put, Rhine wants her freedom, and she will find it in any form she can grasp. Except for Rhine's memories, almost the entire book takes place on the grounds of Linden's mansion, so I am anxious to see what will happen in the next book in the series, Fever.
The main character, Rhine Ellery, is forced into a polygamous marriage at the age of 16 to the rich Linden, age 21, along with the flighty 14-year-old Cecily and ex-prostitute, 18-year-old Jenna. Rhine's main goal is escape, but each girl in the marriage has her own motivations and goals. I found their relationships with one another far more interesting than each one's relationship with Linden. Poor Linden lives under the illusions that his aging father feeds him while suffering from the loss of his first love, Rose. While Rhine makes part of her goal to avoid consummating the marriage with Linden, her sister wives have other ideas, but ironically, jealousy among the wives is not the green-eyed monster that I think many would expect. While Cecily is typically self-absorbed and high maintenance, she still wants her sister-wives to bear children, and even Jenna, who hates Linden from the first day, sees no hypocrisy in sharing a bed with him. I also admired Rhine for her extreme patience and endurance with Cecily's immature and naive behavior, though I don't think I would have chosen denial over full disclosure to both Cecily and Linden.
Rhine's secret relationship seems to find it's power in free-formed friendship, without any expectations or requirements. Simply put, Rhine wants her freedom, and she will find it in any form she can grasp. Except for Rhine's memories, almost the entire book takes place on the grounds of Linden's mansion, so I am anxious to see what will happen in the next book in the series, Fever.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Oh Yeah, Audrey! in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Fans of Audrey Hepburn are bound to love Tucker Shaw’s latest contemporary young adult novel <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> especially if they admire her as much as sixteen year old Gemma Beasley does. The novel takes place over a time period of twenty-six hours beginning at 5:00am outside <i>Tiffany’s</i> in New York. Through Tumblr Gemma has “met” other Audrey fanatics and has arranged a get together in honour of the twentieth anniversary of the legendary star’s death.
It helps to have watched the film <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> (I haven’t) or at least have read the book (I have), as the narrative is full of quotes and references to Holly Golightly and scenes from the film. At first it appears no one else will turn up to the meeting but eventually they do and their exciting day gets off to an enjoyable start. Although they have a strict itinerary planned out it is soon forgotten as other options arise. By asking themselves: “what would Holly do?” they end up doing a lot of things they have never done before.
It all seems too good to be true when a rich good-looking guy asks Gemma out for dinner. She accepts despite it meaning she will be ditching her friends but she promises to meet up with them later. However, Gemma soon finds herself out of her depth and feels like she has ruined the evening not just for herself, but for her friends as well.
Initially readers may expect <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> to be a very girly book but it actually has a strong message behind it. The whole time that Gemma is asking herself “what would Holly do?” she is not discovering the person she is and what she really wants. <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> may have made running away from home and living independently look like a glamorous adventure, but Gemma discovers that Holly Golightly was most likely a very lonely character.
I enjoyed this book much more than I was expecting to. It is a quick easy read that is very funny and entertaining but also moving at the end. Those who have not yet read/seen <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> will definitely be thinking about doing so after reading <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i>
Fans of Audrey Hepburn are bound to love Tucker Shaw’s latest contemporary young adult novel <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> especially if they admire her as much as sixteen year old Gemma Beasley does. The novel takes place over a time period of twenty-six hours beginning at 5:00am outside <i>Tiffany’s</i> in New York. Through Tumblr Gemma has “met” other Audrey fanatics and has arranged a get together in honour of the twentieth anniversary of the legendary star’s death.
It helps to have watched the film <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> (I haven’t) or at least have read the book (I have), as the narrative is full of quotes and references to Holly Golightly and scenes from the film. At first it appears no one else will turn up to the meeting but eventually they do and their exciting day gets off to an enjoyable start. Although they have a strict itinerary planned out it is soon forgotten as other options arise. By asking themselves: “what would Holly do?” they end up doing a lot of things they have never done before.
It all seems too good to be true when a rich good-looking guy asks Gemma out for dinner. She accepts despite it meaning she will be ditching her friends but she promises to meet up with them later. However, Gemma soon finds herself out of her depth and feels like she has ruined the evening not just for herself, but for her friends as well.
Initially readers may expect <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> to be a very girly book but it actually has a strong message behind it. The whole time that Gemma is asking herself “what would Holly do?” she is not discovering the person she is and what she really wants. <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> may have made running away from home and living independently look like a glamorous adventure, but Gemma discovers that Holly Golightly was most likely a very lonely character.
I enjoyed this book much more than I was expecting to. It is a quick easy read that is very funny and entertaining but also moving at the end. Those who have not yet read/seen <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> will definitely be thinking about doing so after reading <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Intern (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Ben is a widower who has tried to fill his time with routine and travel since his wife passed, but he is stuck in a rut. He feels unnecessary and lonely. On his way out of a grocery store Ben spies a flier for “Senior Interns”. He discovers that they actually mean Senior Citizens and not high school seniors, and he creates a video application outlining his qualifications and telling about himself.
Jules runs her company, which she started out of her home, with an attention to detail that insists on perfection, all the while it’s strangling her home life.
She neither remembers she agreed to, nor wants to utilize, an intern of any sort, let alone an out-to-pasture one as Ben appears to be.
With quiet persistence, a good dose of humor, and genuine caring, expertise and talent, Ben goes about proving to Jules just how much she needs his brand of help and how much value he can add to her operation.
I really enjoyed this film. For me, it had just the right amount of funny and sad and even a bit of action (entrenched in a totally impossible situation, and obviously for pure comic relief sake) that made it completely enjoyable to watch.
It is rated PG-13, but I think that even a youngster in the 10 or 11 year old range, provided they were mature enough to deal with the idea of infidelity inside a marriage, would be ok to see it too. The rating was given in part due to “brief strong language” but to be honest I can’t recall any very strong language, which honestly in this day & age is a refreshing change.
I love DeNiro in almost anything I see him in, and this was no exception. I have never had strong feelings either way regarding Anne Hathaway, but I liked her in this, paired against DeNiro. The rest of the cast did their job well, but for me sort of faded into the background against the 2 main characters.
I would give this film 4 out of 5 stars, and the 4 stars is only because it wasn’t a movie I came away with a feeling of “oh my gosh that was AMAZING”, and more that I came away thinking “that was really good, I really enjoyed it and I’m glad that I got to see it.”
Jules runs her company, which she started out of her home, with an attention to detail that insists on perfection, all the while it’s strangling her home life.
She neither remembers she agreed to, nor wants to utilize, an intern of any sort, let alone an out-to-pasture one as Ben appears to be.
With quiet persistence, a good dose of humor, and genuine caring, expertise and talent, Ben goes about proving to Jules just how much she needs his brand of help and how much value he can add to her operation.
I really enjoyed this film. For me, it had just the right amount of funny and sad and even a bit of action (entrenched in a totally impossible situation, and obviously for pure comic relief sake) that made it completely enjoyable to watch.
It is rated PG-13, but I think that even a youngster in the 10 or 11 year old range, provided they were mature enough to deal with the idea of infidelity inside a marriage, would be ok to see it too. The rating was given in part due to “brief strong language” but to be honest I can’t recall any very strong language, which honestly in this day & age is a refreshing change.
I love DeNiro in almost anything I see him in, and this was no exception. I have never had strong feelings either way regarding Anne Hathaway, but I liked her in this, paired against DeNiro. The rest of the cast did their job well, but for me sort of faded into the background against the 2 main characters.
I would give this film 4 out of 5 stars, and the 4 stars is only because it wasn’t a movie I came away with a feeling of “oh my gosh that was AMAZING”, and more that I came away thinking “that was really good, I really enjoyed it and I’m glad that I got to see it.”
Princess Olga, a Wild and Barefoot Romanov
Book
This is very much a human interest story, told with humour by a down to earth woman struggling to...
A House in the Sky: A Memoir of a Kidnapping That Changed Everything
Amanda Lindhout and Sara Corbett
Book
A House in the Sky is the dramatic and redemptive memoir of Amanda Lindhout, a woman whose curiosity...