Search
Search results
Louise (64 KP) rated A Discovery of Witches in Books
Jul 2, 2018
Reading the reviews for this book, I knew it was going to be one of those reads, it’s a bit of a marmite book, you either love it or hate it. In my case I liked it enough to finish and want to continue to read the next one in the series.When I finished the book that was it. I didnt have loads of questions consuming me, it was just ok? what am I going to read next?
Diana Bishop is the female protagonist, she has descended from a very distinguished line of witches, however Diana does not use her powers that she has inherited, not since her parent’s died. Diana, a scholar is studying at a the Oxfords Bodleain Library as a historian. Unknown to her, she calls a bewitched alchemical manuscript, Ashmole 782. Finding nothing of interest to her apart from a funny feeling and an off putting text, she returns it to the stacks without a futher thought. Soon there are daemons, vampires and witches swarming around the library in search for this particular manuscript as it has been lost for 150 years and has all the answers from their past and to their future.
Deborah Harkness did a great job with the development of the two main characters Diana Bishop and Matthew Clairmont, and even the sub characters, you got to see all their traits and mannerisms.
Diana is the female protagonist she is very bold, outgoing, hardworking and sometimes just damn annoying. She is a witch that doesn’t want to use her powers but is forced to as she needs to protect herself, in the book she is feisty and then other times whiney and saying she can’t do certain things.
Matthew Clairmont is a Vampire that has existed for over a Thousand years, who is currently a geneticist and falls in love instantly with Diana, however, he is very possessive (a vampire trait….supposedly) has moodswings and just generally annoying at times.
The first half of this book is very slow paced and is more of the character building and the relationship developing between the two. The second half is much faster paced as you get more action and magical elements added to it.
There is insta-love but not in the normal way, they don’t show each other that they have feelings for one another for several days but it is a gradual build up, however the book only spans 40 days according to Harkness and I cant believe they are that involved with each other so quickly, I had to take a step back, realising that all this had happened in such a short space of time.
There is also references to a lot of historical figures and wars, so if you like a bit of history in your fiction then this could be for you. There is also no sex scenes in this book, only referencing to kissing, cuddling and a bit of fondling.
One thing that I didn’t like in this book was all the french that was used (I am not french or learnt any either) However, I think Harkness added this to feel more authentic as that was where Matthews mother Ysabeau lived.
I will definitely be reading the second book in the trilogy as I am intrigued to find out what happens next.
I rated this book a 3 out of 5 stars.
Diana Bishop is the female protagonist, she has descended from a very distinguished line of witches, however Diana does not use her powers that she has inherited, not since her parent’s died. Diana, a scholar is studying at a the Oxfords Bodleain Library as a historian. Unknown to her, she calls a bewitched alchemical manuscript, Ashmole 782. Finding nothing of interest to her apart from a funny feeling and an off putting text, she returns it to the stacks without a futher thought. Soon there are daemons, vampires and witches swarming around the library in search for this particular manuscript as it has been lost for 150 years and has all the answers from their past and to their future.
Deborah Harkness did a great job with the development of the two main characters Diana Bishop and Matthew Clairmont, and even the sub characters, you got to see all their traits and mannerisms.
Diana is the female protagonist she is very bold, outgoing, hardworking and sometimes just damn annoying. She is a witch that doesn’t want to use her powers but is forced to as she needs to protect herself, in the book she is feisty and then other times whiney and saying she can’t do certain things.
Matthew Clairmont is a Vampire that has existed for over a Thousand years, who is currently a geneticist and falls in love instantly with Diana, however, he is very possessive (a vampire trait….supposedly) has moodswings and just generally annoying at times.
The first half of this book is very slow paced and is more of the character building and the relationship developing between the two. The second half is much faster paced as you get more action and magical elements added to it.
There is insta-love but not in the normal way, they don’t show each other that they have feelings for one another for several days but it is a gradual build up, however the book only spans 40 days according to Harkness and I cant believe they are that involved with each other so quickly, I had to take a step back, realising that all this had happened in such a short space of time.
There is also references to a lot of historical figures and wars, so if you like a bit of history in your fiction then this could be for you. There is also no sex scenes in this book, only referencing to kissing, cuddling and a bit of fondling.
One thing that I didn’t like in this book was all the french that was used (I am not french or learnt any either) However, I think Harkness added this to feel more authentic as that was where Matthews mother Ysabeau lived.
I will definitely be reading the second book in the trilogy as I am intrigued to find out what happens next.
I rated this book a 3 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Borat (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
One of the funniest and most shockingly outrageous comedies in the history of film has arrived, and it is poised not only to make Sacha Baron Cohen a major star, but also ignite controversy. The film is Borat and it follows Cohen’s Kazakhstan news man, Borat, as he leaves his homeland to film a documentary in New York.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Irresistible (2020) in Movies
Jun 23, 2020
Jon Stewart has been fairly quiet since his retirement from The Daily Show. In a recent interview with Howard Stern he talked about being content on a farm for rescued animals and enjoying more time with his family. He also sent to that he would be doing projects that interested him. In “Irresistible” Stewart working as both Writer and Director has crafted a funny, informative, and expansive look at the political process.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I think that almost everyone has some knowledge of Laurel and Hardy. Certainly growing up with a love of black and white comedies meant that I saw a fair few myself. There's certainly a familiarity in what we see from Coogan and Reilly that brings a smile to your face. The main problem is that it's such a hard act to follow. I can't say that I'm left raving about what was presented. It's a charming film... I'm just not sure if that's a compliment or not.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Terrible Candidates in Tabletop Games
Aug 28, 2020
2020 is a year that will definitely go down in the history books for many reasons. Amidst a global pandemic, a growing civil rights movement, and a hurricane-like storm that ravaged the state of Iowa on August 10th, we ALSO find ourselves in an election year. As if things couldn’t get any crazier, right? Get in the campaigning mood by checking out Terrible Candidates, and remember to get out and vote on November 3rd, America!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Team America: World Police (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With world tensions at an all time high with the very real threat of terrorism, the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have rushed to the rescue with a biting political and social satire named “Team America: World Police”.
The film is a puppet movie based upon the old Thunderbirds television show about a team of specialists who fight to save the world from all manner of threats both real and imagined. The story is told entirely by puppets and miniatures which allows Stone and Parker to push the boundaries much further than they would be allowed to with live actors and in doing so, give the audience some of the deepest albeit raunchiest laughs seen in a long time.
The story opens with Team America battling the terrorists in Paris. Ever quick on the trigger, the team is able to stop the deployment of a weapon of mass destruction but in the process much of the cities famed landmarks fall from collateral damage.
Forced to find a new team member, the leader of Team America, Spottswoode recruits a stage actor named Gary Johnston to join the team and infiltrate the terrorist organization to learn what new attacks are being planned.
While this is seen as a good move by the team, there are parts of the team that are unsure of this as one in particular does not trust actors and thinks that he will escalate an already volatile situation. Undaunted, the team sets off for Cairo Egypt and eventually leaves a trail of mayhem and destruction in their path.
It is at this point that the real story of the films kicks into gear. It is learned that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is working with the terrorists to plot the ultimate attack and have convinced a cadre of Hollywood actors to attend a peace conference with other world leaders in an attempt to undermine Team America.
In between battles, Team America has plenty of time to take on other concerns such as love, self-doubt, personal issues, and suspicions, some of which result in a side-splitting sex scene that will soon become legend, as even though it involved puppets, it has to be severely edited in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. As it stands, it is one of the funniest moments in cinematic history and worth the price of admission alone.
The film does a good job of mixing comedy and commentary without ever drawing a line and saying this is how it is. We see Team America as a gun happy bunch, but we are also shown that they are true patriots who are willing to do what it takes to keep the country safe. Such is the genius of Parker and Stone as they are able to create a biting social commentary that makes you aware of issues without pounding the audience over their heads with the creator’s viewpoints. Instead the audience is given a situation and watch things taken to highly comical levels in an effort to entertain. People are free to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the messages in the film as despite your beliefs or political leanings, we all laugh. There will be those that take umbrage to the crude humor and language, and others will not like what they may call a right-wing message. Instead I looked at the film as a very funny comedy with solid social commentary.
The only fault I had with the film is that it does drag a bit about ¾ in before getting to the final confrontations but those are well worth the wait. The film also parodies many action films and it is fun to try to try to uncover which film is being parodied. The puppets themselves are very impressive as their movements and facial expressions are easily the best ever captured on film.
The film is a puppet movie based upon the old Thunderbirds television show about a team of specialists who fight to save the world from all manner of threats both real and imagined. The story is told entirely by puppets and miniatures which allows Stone and Parker to push the boundaries much further than they would be allowed to with live actors and in doing so, give the audience some of the deepest albeit raunchiest laughs seen in a long time.
The story opens with Team America battling the terrorists in Paris. Ever quick on the trigger, the team is able to stop the deployment of a weapon of mass destruction but in the process much of the cities famed landmarks fall from collateral damage.
Forced to find a new team member, the leader of Team America, Spottswoode recruits a stage actor named Gary Johnston to join the team and infiltrate the terrorist organization to learn what new attacks are being planned.
While this is seen as a good move by the team, there are parts of the team that are unsure of this as one in particular does not trust actors and thinks that he will escalate an already volatile situation. Undaunted, the team sets off for Cairo Egypt and eventually leaves a trail of mayhem and destruction in their path.
It is at this point that the real story of the films kicks into gear. It is learned that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is working with the terrorists to plot the ultimate attack and have convinced a cadre of Hollywood actors to attend a peace conference with other world leaders in an attempt to undermine Team America.
In between battles, Team America has plenty of time to take on other concerns such as love, self-doubt, personal issues, and suspicions, some of which result in a side-splitting sex scene that will soon become legend, as even though it involved puppets, it has to be severely edited in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. As it stands, it is one of the funniest moments in cinematic history and worth the price of admission alone.
The film does a good job of mixing comedy and commentary without ever drawing a line and saying this is how it is. We see Team America as a gun happy bunch, but we are also shown that they are true patriots who are willing to do what it takes to keep the country safe. Such is the genius of Parker and Stone as they are able to create a biting social commentary that makes you aware of issues without pounding the audience over their heads with the creator’s viewpoints. Instead the audience is given a situation and watch things taken to highly comical levels in an effort to entertain. People are free to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the messages in the film as despite your beliefs or political leanings, we all laugh. There will be those that take umbrage to the crude humor and language, and others will not like what they may call a right-wing message. Instead I looked at the film as a very funny comedy with solid social commentary.
The only fault I had with the film is that it does drag a bit about ¾ in before getting to the final confrontations but those are well worth the wait. The film also parodies many action films and it is fun to try to try to uncover which film is being parodied. The puppets themselves are very impressive as their movements and facial expressions are easily the best ever captured on film.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Willy's Wonderland (2021) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021
Could’ve been so much better
If you’ve seen the trailer for Willy’s Wonderland, you were no doubt wondering what on earth your eyes had just been witness to, and I’m afraid the full film doesn’t get any less demented. Willy’s Wonderland is a 2021 horror comedy from director Kevin Lewis that is every bit a modern day B-movie, complete with cheesy script and questionable acting. On paper it sounds like it should be entertainingly bad but silly, but unfortunately in reality it’s just bad.
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Falling Short in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first found out about Falling Short, written by Lex Coulton, the blurb promised to be ''fresh, funny and life-affirming''. I am sorry, but no. That is not correct. This book was none of those things. It wasn’t bad at all, but I would prefer describing it as a slow-paced, and confusingly complex in an unsatisfying way.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Cruise Flying High Again.
If you ask anyone to list the top 10 film actors, chance is that “Tom Cruise” would make many people’s lists. He’s in everything isn’t he? Well, actually, no. Looking at his imdb history, he’s only averaged just over a movie per year for several years. I guess he’s just traditionally made a big impact with the films he’s done. This all rather changed in the last year with his offerings of the rather lacklustre “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” (FFF) and the pretty dreadful “The Mummy” (Ff) as one of this summer’s big blockbuster disappointments. So Thomas Cruise Mapother IV was sorely in need of a upward turn and fortunately “American Made” delivers in spades.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Apr 18, 2017
New, yet Nostalgic
So whenever I hear that there's going to be a new Star Wars Movie, I get so excited EVERY TIME! However, that's not to say that I don't always feel nervous about this next one could be "The Bad Star Wars Film" because whilst I can find some good aspects of the prequel trilogy (SOME! Not a lot but there is some) I don't enjoy them and prefer to ignore them when having a Star Wars Movie marathon.
So when I heard that there's this film being made that's not and 'episode' but will have some connections to the original trilogy, I was nervous that it might blow some of the lore out the window and try and make their own lore that doesn't fit in with the prequels or the sequels. On the other hand I was so excited to feel that I was getting to see new characters and more of the lore on film such as Kyber Crystals and Jedha itself.
The characters were incredible in my opinion! Felicity Jones portrayed Jyn Erso, and really brought the strong female lead to a new generation of Star Wars fans and film fans in general. Jyn Erso is the Princess Leia of this new generation and honestly she had quite a lot to live up to following Daisy Ridley's portrayal as the strong female lead character, Rey, in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Long story short, Felicity Jones nailed it! She's strong, independent but also has a lot of history and emotion that we don't get to see a lot of.
Then there's characters like K-2SO who is hilarious in my opinion and Alan Tudyk really brought a droid to life and made him feel more human, but also 'too good to be a human character', because there are certain aspects of the film where I was sat thinking "This character is hilarious to me, but I think the fact that he's a droid and doesn't fully understand a living, breathing, being's train of thought. So if this character was written as a human he wouldn't be as funny to me."
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
My issue with the film, whilst I did enjoy it and understand WHY they ended it with Jyn's and Cassian's death, but I would love to have seen MORE of these characters. If they wanted to do a film with those characters in the future, it would have to be a more coming of age movie for Jyn and whilst I wouldn't mind seeing more of her growing up to understand her character more, I'd have preferred to see an aftermath film, because I think they could totally write the character to be someone who still fights for the rebellion but has some reason not to be in the events that take place in the original trilogy. Maybe she's taking care of some surviving death troopers, or trying to find out what the Empire's plans are on another planet or in another system because to think that the Empire had all of their subjects in one place concentrating on one project is ridiculous. Perhaps the First Order was being formed secretly in another system, or the Empire was enslaving some planets to prepare them for the Empires master plan of ruling the galaxy.
Overall, I just wanted more of these characters because they were just well written and the film was shot beautifully. To my knowledge, from the top of my head there weren't any jumpy editing cuts, or any moments where, due to camera movement, I would think "what's going on I can't follow the action" etc. It was brilliantly made and it very quickly became not just one of my favourite movies of all time, but one of my favourite Star Wars movies! But I have to give it a 9/10 because of the reasons I stated above...I need more of these characters in future aftermath films, but it cant happen now because of the ending and that makes me sad.
Brilliant Movie, Brilliant Cast, and of course....
THE DARTH VADER CORRIDOR SCENE!
So when I heard that there's this film being made that's not and 'episode' but will have some connections to the original trilogy, I was nervous that it might blow some of the lore out the window and try and make their own lore that doesn't fit in with the prequels or the sequels. On the other hand I was so excited to feel that I was getting to see new characters and more of the lore on film such as Kyber Crystals and Jedha itself.
The characters were incredible in my opinion! Felicity Jones portrayed Jyn Erso, and really brought the strong female lead to a new generation of Star Wars fans and film fans in general. Jyn Erso is the Princess Leia of this new generation and honestly she had quite a lot to live up to following Daisy Ridley's portrayal as the strong female lead character, Rey, in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Long story short, Felicity Jones nailed it! She's strong, independent but also has a lot of history and emotion that we don't get to see a lot of.
Then there's characters like K-2SO who is hilarious in my opinion and Alan Tudyk really brought a droid to life and made him feel more human, but also 'too good to be a human character', because there are certain aspects of the film where I was sat thinking "This character is hilarious to me, but I think the fact that he's a droid and doesn't fully understand a living, breathing, being's train of thought. So if this character was written as a human he wouldn't be as funny to me."
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
My issue with the film, whilst I did enjoy it and understand WHY they ended it with Jyn's and Cassian's death, but I would love to have seen MORE of these characters. If they wanted to do a film with those characters in the future, it would have to be a more coming of age movie for Jyn and whilst I wouldn't mind seeing more of her growing up to understand her character more, I'd have preferred to see an aftermath film, because I think they could totally write the character to be someone who still fights for the rebellion but has some reason not to be in the events that take place in the original trilogy. Maybe she's taking care of some surviving death troopers, or trying to find out what the Empire's plans are on another planet or in another system because to think that the Empire had all of their subjects in one place concentrating on one project is ridiculous. Perhaps the First Order was being formed secretly in another system, or the Empire was enslaving some planets to prepare them for the Empires master plan of ruling the galaxy.
Overall, I just wanted more of these characters because they were just well written and the film was shot beautifully. To my knowledge, from the top of my head there weren't any jumpy editing cuts, or any moments where, due to camera movement, I would think "what's going on I can't follow the action" etc. It was brilliantly made and it very quickly became not just one of my favourite movies of all time, but one of my favourite Star Wars movies! But I have to give it a 9/10 because of the reasons I stated above...I need more of these characters in future aftermath films, but it cant happen now because of the ending and that makes me sad.
Brilliant Movie, Brilliant Cast, and of course....
THE DARTH VADER CORRIDOR SCENE!