Search
Search results
Ross (3282 KP) rated Blood of Assassins in Books
Feb 12, 2018
I can't quite see what the fuss is all about
*** Disclosure: I received an advance copy of this book from NetGalley in return for an honest review ***
I read Blood of Assassins straight on the back of Age of Assassins, which I thought was OK.
Here we are back with Girton Club-Foot and his assassin master 5 years after the conclusion of the first book. Having travelled as mercenaries during this time, Girton has stopped training with the sword and picked up a warhammer instead. The book opens with he and his master seeing off some foreign assassins of their own, his master becoming poisoned in the conflict.
The Tired Lands has deteriorated over this time with Girton's three fellow squires all vying to become king, resulting in a long war that has taken its toll on the land and its people.
Girton becomes tasked with finding the spy within his old friend, Rufra's, camp and soon becomes embroiled in finding a murderer and fending off attacks on the camp and nearby towns.
Girton is one of the most annoying characters I have come across for a while, being incredibly stupid, selfish and childish. He is mooted as an incredible warrior on his return, which I thought of as odd due to nobody seeing his true skills in the first book - he always had to pretend to be mostly useless to hide his assassin and sorcery abilities. Hi is also praised for solving the mystery over the assassin-hiring in the first book, even though he solved that by luck, people just confessing to him or other people working it out instead of him.
Here he again does next to nothing to solve the mystery of the spy and only when he is confronted by them does he work it out.
As in the first book, he again becomes embroiled in identifying a murderer in the camp, which he again does despite his stupidity.
I'm all for an anti-hero but they are supposed to still make you either love them or hate them, I found myself completely indifferent to Girton's plight and just wanted to get through it.
There were more typical fantasy battle scenes in this book, which were well executed, but these were few and far between and came somewhat at odds with the plot. This redeemed the book for me.
However, as with the first book, there were no hints at who the culprit was, too much of it was left to the reveal, meaning the mystery aspect of the book was a little clumsy.
And the dream sequences, which in the first book served to tell the story of Girton's upbringing, here are a complete nonsense and add nothing to the story. Just flowery nonsense.
Barker has a good turn of phrase, but at times I thought it just confusing:
"The impact came from behind, high in the centre of my back, throwing me forward.
An arrow.
I knew the way they killed. Felt its ghost as it ruptured my lungs, split my breastbone and burst from my chest. I hit the floor, dust billowing from the carpet. The weight on my back forced me down into the choking cloud.
Not an arrow."
For me this was style over substance and left me unnecessarily confused as to what was happening.
The first person perspective is also fatally flawed in this setting as we therefore automatically know Girton survives, taking the edge off all the battles he is involved in.
In summary, a little flowery at times and doesn't know whether it wants to be a fantasy book or a thriller and succeeds in neither all that well.
I read Blood of Assassins straight on the back of Age of Assassins, which I thought was OK.
Here we are back with Girton Club-Foot and his assassin master 5 years after the conclusion of the first book. Having travelled as mercenaries during this time, Girton has stopped training with the sword and picked up a warhammer instead. The book opens with he and his master seeing off some foreign assassins of their own, his master becoming poisoned in the conflict.
The Tired Lands has deteriorated over this time with Girton's three fellow squires all vying to become king, resulting in a long war that has taken its toll on the land and its people.
Girton becomes tasked with finding the spy within his old friend, Rufra's, camp and soon becomes embroiled in finding a murderer and fending off attacks on the camp and nearby towns.
Girton is one of the most annoying characters I have come across for a while, being incredibly stupid, selfish and childish. He is mooted as an incredible warrior on his return, which I thought of as odd due to nobody seeing his true skills in the first book - he always had to pretend to be mostly useless to hide his assassin and sorcery abilities. Hi is also praised for solving the mystery over the assassin-hiring in the first book, even though he solved that by luck, people just confessing to him or other people working it out instead of him.
Here he again does next to nothing to solve the mystery of the spy and only when he is confronted by them does he work it out.
As in the first book, he again becomes embroiled in identifying a murderer in the camp, which he again does despite his stupidity.
I'm all for an anti-hero but they are supposed to still make you either love them or hate them, I found myself completely indifferent to Girton's plight and just wanted to get through it.
There were more typical fantasy battle scenes in this book, which were well executed, but these were few and far between and came somewhat at odds with the plot. This redeemed the book for me.
However, as with the first book, there were no hints at who the culprit was, too much of it was left to the reveal, meaning the mystery aspect of the book was a little clumsy.
And the dream sequences, which in the first book served to tell the story of Girton's upbringing, here are a complete nonsense and add nothing to the story. Just flowery nonsense.
Barker has a good turn of phrase, but at times I thought it just confusing:
"The impact came from behind, high in the centre of my back, throwing me forward.
An arrow.
I knew the way they killed. Felt its ghost as it ruptured my lungs, split my breastbone and burst from my chest. I hit the floor, dust billowing from the carpet. The weight on my back forced me down into the choking cloud.
Not an arrow."
For me this was style over substance and left me unnecessarily confused as to what was happening.
The first person perspective is also fatally flawed in this setting as we therefore automatically know Girton survives, taking the edge off all the battles he is involved in.
In summary, a little flowery at times and doesn't know whether it wants to be a fantasy book or a thriller and succeeds in neither all that well.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children in Books
Jun 7, 2018
This review can also be found on my blog <a href="themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I feel the synopsis of what the book is about makes it sound a lot better than what it is. I wanted to like this book, I really did. I had high hopes for it. Unfortunately, it didn't do much for me. I was expecting more of a ghost story. Instead I got more of a sci-fi story, and one that wasn't very good.
Jacob's grandfather tells him of a magical island of which he spent his childhood. He shows him photos and tells him stories about the peculiar children he grew up with. As Jacob becomes a teenager, he stops believing in his grandfather's ridiculous stories until something awful happens. Jacob travels to the mysterious island to find out about his grandfather. Little does he know that by going to that island he's put himself and many others in danger.
First off, I thought the word building/setting were fantastic. The author made me feel as if I was on the island. I'll give him props there. The description of the world was beautifully described.
I couldn't relate very much to the characters. I can't really place why that is. I just couldn't connect. I found myself not caring what happened to any of them. Perhaps the author should've spent a bit more time character building to make me relate to at least one the characters. The characters just felt a bit one dimensional. There wasn't even one that I could remotely say that I favourited. Okay, that's a lie. I liked Fiona, the Irish girl, but I only liked her because she was Irish, and I love all things Irish. That's it.
I found the pacing to be a bit slow. I'd read a chapter, then I'd get bored with it and go off to do something else. I really struggled with this book. There are a couple of chapters that the pacing is great in, but it's not until the last two chapters that the pacing definitely picks up.
The dialogue was easy to understand although some Americans may not get all the slang British terms. There was one scene where a character says "I was taking a piss" where he meant that he was joking around. The phrase he meant was "taking the piss" which is a British slang phrase for joking. "Taking a piss" isn't a typo either as it's mentioned a few more times. This annoyed me because taking a piss, is just that, it means urinating. "Taking the piss" means to be joking around. Other than that, the dialogue was good.
The best part of the book was the photographs found within the book. I loved that little touch! I found myself studying the photos and enjoying them a million times better than the actual book.
The cover is also something I loved about the book. How freaky does that little girl look??? The German cover looks even better. It's the same photo, just with a green hue. If I was marking the book based on the cover alone, it'd get 5 out of 5 for me.
The title of the book doesn't really leave anything to make you wonder what the books about. It says exactly what the book is about - a home for peculiar children.
All in all, this book left me feeling empty. I didn't really feel much of anything reading it until I got to the last two chapters where it got exciting. However, I will not put myself through the torture of reading the second book in the series especially as I don't care about the characters or what happens to them. I'm just glad I won this book in a competition and didn't buy it.
I was going to give this book a 2 - 2.5 star rating but the ending saved it a bit.
I feel the synopsis of what the book is about makes it sound a lot better than what it is. I wanted to like this book, I really did. I had high hopes for it. Unfortunately, it didn't do much for me. I was expecting more of a ghost story. Instead I got more of a sci-fi story, and one that wasn't very good.
Jacob's grandfather tells him of a magical island of which he spent his childhood. He shows him photos and tells him stories about the peculiar children he grew up with. As Jacob becomes a teenager, he stops believing in his grandfather's ridiculous stories until something awful happens. Jacob travels to the mysterious island to find out about his grandfather. Little does he know that by going to that island he's put himself and many others in danger.
First off, I thought the word building/setting were fantastic. The author made me feel as if I was on the island. I'll give him props there. The description of the world was beautifully described.
I couldn't relate very much to the characters. I can't really place why that is. I just couldn't connect. I found myself not caring what happened to any of them. Perhaps the author should've spent a bit more time character building to make me relate to at least one the characters. The characters just felt a bit one dimensional. There wasn't even one that I could remotely say that I favourited. Okay, that's a lie. I liked Fiona, the Irish girl, but I only liked her because she was Irish, and I love all things Irish. That's it.
I found the pacing to be a bit slow. I'd read a chapter, then I'd get bored with it and go off to do something else. I really struggled with this book. There are a couple of chapters that the pacing is great in, but it's not until the last two chapters that the pacing definitely picks up.
The dialogue was easy to understand although some Americans may not get all the slang British terms. There was one scene where a character says "I was taking a piss" where he meant that he was joking around. The phrase he meant was "taking the piss" which is a British slang phrase for joking. "Taking a piss" isn't a typo either as it's mentioned a few more times. This annoyed me because taking a piss, is just that, it means urinating. "Taking the piss" means to be joking around. Other than that, the dialogue was good.
The best part of the book was the photographs found within the book. I loved that little touch! I found myself studying the photos and enjoying them a million times better than the actual book.
The cover is also something I loved about the book. How freaky does that little girl look??? The German cover looks even better. It's the same photo, just with a green hue. If I was marking the book based on the cover alone, it'd get 5 out of 5 for me.
The title of the book doesn't really leave anything to make you wonder what the books about. It says exactly what the book is about - a home for peculiar children.
All in all, this book left me feeling empty. I didn't really feel much of anything reading it until I got to the last two chapters where it got exciting. However, I will not put myself through the torture of reading the second book in the series especially as I don't care about the characters or what happens to them. I'm just glad I won this book in a competition and didn't buy it.
I was going to give this book a 2 - 2.5 star rating but the ending saved it a bit.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Unbreakable (The Legion, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Obviously choosing to dissect Kami Garcia's solo series as my next audiobook victim was a bad idea... a very bad idea...
Basically, I'm saying I give up on Kami Garcia. No offense, but after my horrid experience with the first couple of books of her <i>Beautiful Creatures</i> series she wrote with Margaret Stohl and then <i>Unbreakable</i>, I'm not sure I want to read another of her books (aside from maybe reading <i>Dangerous Creatures</i>).
<i>Unbreakable</i> sort of has a good idea – emphasis on sort of. Garcia's first debut solo novel follows Kennedy Waters, a girl who doesn't actually believe in ghosts until she finds her mother dead. Shortly after, a ghost makes an attempt to kill her as well, and is stopped by Lukas and Jared Lockhart, two brothers who are part of a centuries-old secret society made up of five members trying to stop a demon released by their ancestors hundreds of years ago. However, Kennedy isn't entirely too sure about whether or not she really belongs with this secret society called the Legion of the Black Dove.
For a person who doesn't watch <i>Supernatural</i> much, it's really weird when I get though, oh... 33 pages, that I realize a book is almost an exact carbon copy of the few episodes I watched.
For instance, there are two brothers in <i>Supernatural</i> and there are two brothers in <i>Unbreakable</i>. Are Sam and his brother identical? No.... not that I'm aware, which is only a small difference between the two books. Brother Pair 1 (<i>Supernatural</i>) and Brother Pair 2 (Unbreakable) apparently hunt demons for a living. At least, that's what I think Pair 1 did – correct me if I'm wrong, avid fans who are bound to be more accurate than me.
Oh, and there's a demon hunting around for a certain person... or a certain group of people. I'm pretty sure there was a demon hunting Brother Pair 1 for quite awhile in the episodes I actually watched (give me a break. I was bored. <i>Supernatural</i> just seemed interesting). Fun fact: possession involved in both TV show and book.
The mere fact that <i>Unbreakable</i> matched the few episodes (I believe they were reruns) I watched didn't bother me too much – it was a potential love triangle between Kennedy, Jared, and Lukas that eventually drove me up the wall. If Garcia isn't careful enough, the tension between Jared and Lukas could eventually set the book on fire – Lukas spends a good part of his time between fighting vengeful spirits and other things rubbing something that Jared did wrong in his face. It gets bad enough that both brothers reach the point of throttling each other's throats and Kennedy going between them and stopping them.
I felt like I was watching a scene from a <i>Twilight</i> (I'm starting to appreciate this series). <i>Lux</i> (because I totally snuck a few peeks in the third one), and pretty much any other book that has a love triangle in which 66% of them nearly start a brawl while the rest of the 33% pretty much yells, "STOP!"
By then, I was definitely not sticking around for five to go down to four just because of a mistake.
I did, however, like the world of Legion. It's certainly not a life I would want, but I definitely enjoyed the basic idea behind the series, Candice Accola's narration of <i>Unbreakable</i>, and the sound effects used in the audiobook.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Basically, I'm saying I give up on Kami Garcia. No offense, but after my horrid experience with the first couple of books of her <i>Beautiful Creatures</i> series she wrote with Margaret Stohl and then <i>Unbreakable</i>, I'm not sure I want to read another of her books (aside from maybe reading <i>Dangerous Creatures</i>).
<i>Unbreakable</i> sort of has a good idea – emphasis on sort of. Garcia's first debut solo novel follows Kennedy Waters, a girl who doesn't actually believe in ghosts until she finds her mother dead. Shortly after, a ghost makes an attempt to kill her as well, and is stopped by Lukas and Jared Lockhart, two brothers who are part of a centuries-old secret society made up of five members trying to stop a demon released by their ancestors hundreds of years ago. However, Kennedy isn't entirely too sure about whether or not she really belongs with this secret society called the Legion of the Black Dove.
For a person who doesn't watch <i>Supernatural</i> much, it's really weird when I get though, oh... 33 pages, that I realize a book is almost an exact carbon copy of the few episodes I watched.
For instance, there are two brothers in <i>Supernatural</i> and there are two brothers in <i>Unbreakable</i>. Are Sam and his brother identical? No.... not that I'm aware, which is only a small difference between the two books. Brother Pair 1 (<i>Supernatural</i>) and Brother Pair 2 (Unbreakable) apparently hunt demons for a living. At least, that's what I think Pair 1 did – correct me if I'm wrong, avid fans who are bound to be more accurate than me.
Oh, and there's a demon hunting around for a certain person... or a certain group of people. I'm pretty sure there was a demon hunting Brother Pair 1 for quite awhile in the episodes I actually watched (give me a break. I was bored. <i>Supernatural</i> just seemed interesting). Fun fact: possession involved in both TV show and book.
The mere fact that <i>Unbreakable</i> matched the few episodes (I believe they were reruns) I watched didn't bother me too much – it was a potential love triangle between Kennedy, Jared, and Lukas that eventually drove me up the wall. If Garcia isn't careful enough, the tension between Jared and Lukas could eventually set the book on fire – Lukas spends a good part of his time between fighting vengeful spirits and other things rubbing something that Jared did wrong in his face. It gets bad enough that both brothers reach the point of throttling each other's throats and Kennedy going between them and stopping them.
I felt like I was watching a scene from a <i>Twilight</i> (I'm starting to appreciate this series). <i>Lux</i> (because I totally snuck a few peeks in the third one), and pretty much any other book that has a love triangle in which 66% of them nearly start a brawl while the rest of the 33% pretty much yells, "STOP!"
By then, I was definitely not sticking around for five to go down to four just because of a mistake.
I did, however, like the world of Legion. It's certainly not a life I would want, but I definitely enjoyed the basic idea behind the series, Candice Accola's narration of <i>Unbreakable</i>, and the sound effects used in the audiobook.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated After Earth (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
At its core, After Earth is a coming of age story set in a future sci-fi world. With the story by Will Smith and directed by M Knight Shyamalan, those expecting the summer blockbusters that Will Smith is known for may be disappointed. Furthermore, those expecting an epic sci-fi film will also be disappointed. In many ways After Earth is a coming of age film for Jaden Smith, who takes center stage.
Set 1000 years in the future, mankind is fighting for survival against a race of creatures known as Ursa, who hunt humans down by smelling fear. The human Special Forces are led by General Cypher Raige played by Will Smith. Smith is a legendary ranger and revered among mankind because of his ability to “Ghost” which is to suppress his fear completely so the Ursa cannot sense him. Meanwhile his son Kitai, played by Will Smith’s real life son Jaden Smith, is desperately trying to impress his father by following in his footsteps. Kitai’s real test comes when the two crash land on the abandoned Earth and Kitai must face his crippling internal fear to save himself and his father.
Will Smith plays perhaps one of his most subdued roles of his career. No wise cracks, no bravado. He is very much the stern and stoic military man. As if to showcase his ability to completely control his fear his character also shows no other emotion either. This is a risky play for an actor who is known for his charisma. And without a doubt many will be turned off by it. But it works to help elevate Jaden’s performance, especially since Will speaks most of the dialog in the film by giving stern orders not only as commanding officer but as a father to son.
Jaden Smith’s performance starts out mediocre. He is not the over confident stupid youth you would mostly expect to find in this type of role, but rather he is the unassuming, emotional and somewhat weak character. From the time the characters crash land on earth he becomes the lead. At first his character is somewhat annoying as he is crippled by fear and emotions. But at the point when he starts to conquer those fears, we too get carried by his performance. He becomes stronger and I found myself actually involved in his journey. No longer trying to figure out what new obstacle he must face next, but rather in watching him grow from boy to man.
Visually the film is beautiful and refreshing. The sci-fi aspects of the film are unassuming which helps to not take away from the story being told. It was reminiscent of some of the 80s sci-fi films that were futuristic but limited and instead focused on story. The first act of the film is slow, however once the scene shifts to earth, the pacing of this film is excellent. It is one dangerous thing to the next in a race against time.
In the end I found myself enjoying this film more than I thought I would. I was surprised by Will Smith’s limited role but I was pleasantly surprised by Jaden’s growth on screen. The film had less visual sci-fi then I was expecting however in the end I did not seem to mind as I found myself more interested in the coming of age story. It is far from perfect and does not feel right being released during the summer blockbuster season. However in the end, it is worth a trip to the theater, even if it is only a matinee.
Set 1000 years in the future, mankind is fighting for survival against a race of creatures known as Ursa, who hunt humans down by smelling fear. The human Special Forces are led by General Cypher Raige played by Will Smith. Smith is a legendary ranger and revered among mankind because of his ability to “Ghost” which is to suppress his fear completely so the Ursa cannot sense him. Meanwhile his son Kitai, played by Will Smith’s real life son Jaden Smith, is desperately trying to impress his father by following in his footsteps. Kitai’s real test comes when the two crash land on the abandoned Earth and Kitai must face his crippling internal fear to save himself and his father.
Will Smith plays perhaps one of his most subdued roles of his career. No wise cracks, no bravado. He is very much the stern and stoic military man. As if to showcase his ability to completely control his fear his character also shows no other emotion either. This is a risky play for an actor who is known for his charisma. And without a doubt many will be turned off by it. But it works to help elevate Jaden’s performance, especially since Will speaks most of the dialog in the film by giving stern orders not only as commanding officer but as a father to son.
Jaden Smith’s performance starts out mediocre. He is not the over confident stupid youth you would mostly expect to find in this type of role, but rather he is the unassuming, emotional and somewhat weak character. From the time the characters crash land on earth he becomes the lead. At first his character is somewhat annoying as he is crippled by fear and emotions. But at the point when he starts to conquer those fears, we too get carried by his performance. He becomes stronger and I found myself actually involved in his journey. No longer trying to figure out what new obstacle he must face next, but rather in watching him grow from boy to man.
Visually the film is beautiful and refreshing. The sci-fi aspects of the film are unassuming which helps to not take away from the story being told. It was reminiscent of some of the 80s sci-fi films that were futuristic but limited and instead focused on story. The first act of the film is slow, however once the scene shifts to earth, the pacing of this film is excellent. It is one dangerous thing to the next in a race against time.
In the end I found myself enjoying this film more than I thought I would. I was surprised by Will Smith’s limited role but I was pleasantly surprised by Jaden’s growth on screen. The film had less visual sci-fi then I was expecting however in the end I did not seem to mind as I found myself more interested in the coming of age story. It is far from perfect and does not feel right being released during the summer blockbuster season. However in the end, it is worth a trip to the theater, even if it is only a matinee.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over a decade ago, director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson breathed new life into what had become a very stagnant horror genre with the release of Scream. The film was a clever twist on the killer-on-the-loose theme that had dominated the genre since the 80s and scored huge with audiences who loved the twists and turns of the film as well as the characters who quoted rules for surviving a horror film. With the huge success of the film, two sequels followed. But by the time Scream 3 was released, the series had lost its momentum and was becomeing the very cliche of a horror film that the series had originally made fun of.
Now in 2011, Craven and Williamson have returned with Scream 4, which is the planned first film in a new trilogy for the series with hopes to breath new life in a genre that has once again grown stale with ghost films and the so-called torture porn of the Saw films. Scream 4 is set 10 years after the events of the first film, and with a new book to promote, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), has returned to Woodsboro as a best-selling author, thanks to her book on self-empowerment, a direct result of her experiences in the previous three films.
The return of Sidney is a happy moment for Sherrif Dewey Riley (David Arquette), but not so much for his wife Gale (Courtney Cox), who is facing a bad case of writer’s block and is not exactly thrilled with her fade from the spotlight and life as the wife of the sheriff in the small town. Things get shaken up when a couple of gruesome murders are discovered and before long Sidney is being targeted by a killer who seems to be repeating the pattern of killing that had haunted her in the past.
When the killer strikes again and taunts Sidney with a disturbing phone call, Gale sees the chance to regain her former glory and despite the wishes of her husband Dewey, sets out to solve the mystery of the killer before it is too late.
What follows is a twisting and turning plot that has you seeing suspects everywhere as the body count piles up.
The film introduces some new faces into the series and Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts make the best of their roles and actually bring some depth to their characters. Of course there are numerous horror and pop culture references in the film which not only lighten the tension but help with the plot. The killings are graphic and the mix of comedy and horror is in good balance. As usual, people are really dumb just before they get theirs and do not do things like phone for help, take a safer route, and so on, but the film is still enjoyable from a horror fan’s perspective.
There are some nice celebrity cameos in the film and while the film did drag a bit in the final act before the conclusion, the film did redeem itself in the end. While it is not in danger of being cited for a deep plot, original story, or deep characters with wide character arcs, Scream 4 knows who its target audience is and what the audience expects. Some may say the series stayed away top long and has lost its edge and simply repeats the pattern and plot lines we’ve seen in the previous films. In the end, despite some issues, Scream 4 delivers a welcome return to the franchise and paves the way for future sequels in a manner which should delight fans of the genre and franchise.
Now in 2011, Craven and Williamson have returned with Scream 4, which is the planned first film in a new trilogy for the series with hopes to breath new life in a genre that has once again grown stale with ghost films and the so-called torture porn of the Saw films. Scream 4 is set 10 years after the events of the first film, and with a new book to promote, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), has returned to Woodsboro as a best-selling author, thanks to her book on self-empowerment, a direct result of her experiences in the previous three films.
The return of Sidney is a happy moment for Sherrif Dewey Riley (David Arquette), but not so much for his wife Gale (Courtney Cox), who is facing a bad case of writer’s block and is not exactly thrilled with her fade from the spotlight and life as the wife of the sheriff in the small town. Things get shaken up when a couple of gruesome murders are discovered and before long Sidney is being targeted by a killer who seems to be repeating the pattern of killing that had haunted her in the past.
When the killer strikes again and taunts Sidney with a disturbing phone call, Gale sees the chance to regain her former glory and despite the wishes of her husband Dewey, sets out to solve the mystery of the killer before it is too late.
What follows is a twisting and turning plot that has you seeing suspects everywhere as the body count piles up.
The film introduces some new faces into the series and Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts make the best of their roles and actually bring some depth to their characters. Of course there are numerous horror and pop culture references in the film which not only lighten the tension but help with the plot. The killings are graphic and the mix of comedy and horror is in good balance. As usual, people are really dumb just before they get theirs and do not do things like phone for help, take a safer route, and so on, but the film is still enjoyable from a horror fan’s perspective.
There are some nice celebrity cameos in the film and while the film did drag a bit in the final act before the conclusion, the film did redeem itself in the end. While it is not in danger of being cited for a deep plot, original story, or deep characters with wide character arcs, Scream 4 knows who its target audience is and what the audience expects. Some may say the series stayed away top long and has lost its edge and simply repeats the pattern and plot lines we’ve seen in the previous films. In the end, despite some issues, Scream 4 delivers a welcome return to the franchise and paves the way for future sequels in a manner which should delight fans of the genre and franchise.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 6, 2021
Interesting...Intriguing...and Weird
You have 2 choices when choosing to view the Arthurian tale THE GREEN KNIGHT.
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
Character-driven storyline rather than wham-bam Marvel action (1 more)
Illyana Rasputin - great character
"Glass" - Half Full.
So, I've heard a lot of bad word-of-mouth about this X-Men flick, but otherwise knew very little about it. As such, I went in with low expectations. And although there is nothing remotely novel about the movie, I didn't think it was too bad at all.
The plot: So, my review title suggests that the plot is very closely aligned to M Night Shymalan's "Glass" - his "Split" sequel from last year. A Victorian-style hospital-cum-prison similarly forms the claustrophobic setting for the majority of the movie. This is where the troubled teen Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken after being suddenly orphaned in dramatic and mysterious circumstances. The only doctor present, Dr Reyes (Alice Braga), says she is being held there for her own - and society's safety - while her puberty-driven mutant tendencies emerge.
Locked away with her is Rahne (Maisie Williams), Charlie (Sam Guthrie), 'hot' Brazilian hunk Roberto (Henry Zaga) and the gloriously named Illyana Rasputin (Anya-Taylor Joy). Danni's arrival sparks a serious of escalating events that literally lead to all hell breaking loose.
Blu is the warmest colour: What made this Marvel movie stand-out for me, from the normal glass-shattering standard, is that it is predominantly a character-led piece. We spend quite a bit of time (for a Marvel movie) in building relationships between the teens, including a sweet lesbian-coming-out 'will they/won't they' tension between Rahne and Danni.
I was also very much attracted to the performance of Blu Hunt. I admit that this might not just be due to her interesting performance (the indigenous / LBGT angle is intriguing) but because she reminded me strongly of a girl at school who I had a mad crush on and completely failed to get off with! Blu is actually native American (from the Lakota tribe). Given she is the lead and has to carry the movie, it's a surprise that she is only about 5th in the billing: I'd have been upset with the director (Josh "A Fault in our Stars" Boone) about that.
Maisie Williams is also effective in this, and gets top billing, although arguably Anya-Taylor-Joy has emerged - with her wonderful "Emma" - as the bigger star since filming.
But it's Taylor-Joy's Rasputin that really stands out as the most interesting of the characters on show. There's a scene where she goes into action - eyes blazing and 'daemon' hovering - that would make a splendid PC screensaver! Stuff the "Black Widow" standalone movie: I'd go watch Illyana Rasputin kicking ass in her own follow-up movie! (Of course, Anya Taylor-Joy was also prominent in "Glass", which unfortunately cements the similarities between the films.)
The movie has had a long and tortuous path to its final release, being made waaaaaayyyyy back in 2017. As an X-Men movie, it's appeared after the X-Men universe finally imploded (with the disappointing whimper of "Dark Phoenix"). So in that sense it's a bit of a ghost of a flick.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. There's a sense of great familiarity with the contents - particularly with the strong echoes of "Glass", actually filmed after this one (but with 'inversion', who knows anymore?). Even the "Indian legend" that runs through the movie swaps a bear for a wolf but ends with a familiar, rather groan-inducing, motto. (It was used in "Tomorrowland" I think?)
But the young cast are attractive and entertained me for the (pleasantly short) running time. It's not going to win any prizes for originality, or indeed anything else. But it really wasn't the X-Men bust I expected it to be.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/08/x-men-the-new-mutants-2020-glass-half-full/ . Thanks.)
The plot: So, my review title suggests that the plot is very closely aligned to M Night Shymalan's "Glass" - his "Split" sequel from last year. A Victorian-style hospital-cum-prison similarly forms the claustrophobic setting for the majority of the movie. This is where the troubled teen Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken after being suddenly orphaned in dramatic and mysterious circumstances. The only doctor present, Dr Reyes (Alice Braga), says she is being held there for her own - and society's safety - while her puberty-driven mutant tendencies emerge.
Locked away with her is Rahne (Maisie Williams), Charlie (Sam Guthrie), 'hot' Brazilian hunk Roberto (Henry Zaga) and the gloriously named Illyana Rasputin (Anya-Taylor Joy). Danni's arrival sparks a serious of escalating events that literally lead to all hell breaking loose.
Blu is the warmest colour: What made this Marvel movie stand-out for me, from the normal glass-shattering standard, is that it is predominantly a character-led piece. We spend quite a bit of time (for a Marvel movie) in building relationships between the teens, including a sweet lesbian-coming-out 'will they/won't they' tension between Rahne and Danni.
I was also very much attracted to the performance of Blu Hunt. I admit that this might not just be due to her interesting performance (the indigenous / LBGT angle is intriguing) but because she reminded me strongly of a girl at school who I had a mad crush on and completely failed to get off with! Blu is actually native American (from the Lakota tribe). Given she is the lead and has to carry the movie, it's a surprise that she is only about 5th in the billing: I'd have been upset with the director (Josh "A Fault in our Stars" Boone) about that.
Maisie Williams is also effective in this, and gets top billing, although arguably Anya-Taylor-Joy has emerged - with her wonderful "Emma" - as the bigger star since filming.
But it's Taylor-Joy's Rasputin that really stands out as the most interesting of the characters on show. There's a scene where she goes into action - eyes blazing and 'daemon' hovering - that would make a splendid PC screensaver! Stuff the "Black Widow" standalone movie: I'd go watch Illyana Rasputin kicking ass in her own follow-up movie! (Of course, Anya Taylor-Joy was also prominent in "Glass", which unfortunately cements the similarities between the films.)
The movie has had a long and tortuous path to its final release, being made waaaaaayyyyy back in 2017. As an X-Men movie, it's appeared after the X-Men universe finally imploded (with the disappointing whimper of "Dark Phoenix"). So in that sense it's a bit of a ghost of a flick.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. There's a sense of great familiarity with the contents - particularly with the strong echoes of "Glass", actually filmed after this one (but with 'inversion', who knows anymore?). Even the "Indian legend" that runs through the movie swaps a bear for a wolf but ends with a familiar, rather groan-inducing, motto. (It was used in "Tomorrowland" I think?)
But the young cast are attractive and entertained me for the (pleasantly short) running time. It's not going to win any prizes for originality, or indeed anything else. But it really wasn't the X-Men bust I expected it to be.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/08/x-men-the-new-mutants-2020-glass-half-full/ . Thanks.)
Amy Norman (1042 KP) rated The Haunting of Bly Manor in TV
Oct 10, 2020 (Updated Oct 10, 2020)
Ok wow. There is so much to deconstruct from 'The Haunting of Bly Manor'.
*there will be no direct spoilers but I will be talking about indirect spoilers*
Indirect spoilers to me are still spoilers, as they change the way you view what piece of media you are consuming! So fair warning here, don't read on if you want to watch Bly unencumbered, or directed towards certain aspects.
The first thing I hope that everyone appreciates about Bly is that it is not a carbon copy of 'The Haunting of Hill House', it is a beautiful piece of its own theatre, and should be appreciated in its own right e.g. each individual season of American Horror Story.
If you are looking for more jump scares, and something more akin to Hill House, then you need to look else where.
Bly is such a delicate and deliberate story, that unfurls so slowly, it crawls. I understand some will find this boring, and will likely give up watching after the first 3 episodes, but it is so perfectly placed, I would implore you to watch on until the end.
*Every* detail within Bly is precise.
I constantly felt like the walls, the flooring, paintings, and general decor were changing, but it was so subtle, and often hadn't at all, it is purposefully disorientating.
Even the camera angles are ever so slightly askew between each shot, the cinematography is unfalteringly gorgeous as a whole anyway.
The colour palate, and colour itself, becomes a character of its own, and was a joy to watch, and take note of.
The dark corners are so black, and add to the heaviness and gravity of any particular scene, leaving you constantly second guessing if you saw a ghost in the background, or if something did subtly change, and then importantly why.
For me, a great many of the characters are heart achingly powerful to watch. I was mesmerised by certain scenes, and I was so drawn in, I sometimes forgot they were delivering an absolutely powerful monologue, and haven't interacted with another character for a while.
For me this was absolutely an ensemble piece, it would not have worked without each moving part, and I would struggle to choose an outstanding performance, as they all delivered.
Some noteworthy topics!
The background ghosts blend in so sublimely, I am sure I missed plenty of them, including some obvious ones, but again that is all part of the absolute majesty of Bly, or 'The Haunting' series.
I would advise to try not to look for them on a first watch through, and let them come to you organically.
I've already seen some mention of this, and I expect it will become a bone of contention - the accents.
I will admit, at first I found some of the accents difficult to listen to, but they are so important, and key to a much larger arc. At first I thought someone needs to fire that voice acting coach! However, what they have done is actually absolutely stellar.
I could gush about the programme for a while but I will leave it here, and let each person decide for themselves what they enjoy about it!
Overall, the whole series is surprisingly poignant and heartfelt - not a lot of titles in the horror genre can claim that. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and will likely rewatch, something I haven't been overly inclined to do in recent years.
I so hope that audiences will enjoy this for what it is, and it won't be downplayed as being 'not as good as Hill House', as they are non-comparable to me.
Masterful! Please enjoy for the utter eye candy the whole thing is.
*there will be no direct spoilers but I will be talking about indirect spoilers*
Indirect spoilers to me are still spoilers, as they change the way you view what piece of media you are consuming! So fair warning here, don't read on if you want to watch Bly unencumbered, or directed towards certain aspects.
The first thing I hope that everyone appreciates about Bly is that it is not a carbon copy of 'The Haunting of Hill House', it is a beautiful piece of its own theatre, and should be appreciated in its own right e.g. each individual season of American Horror Story.
If you are looking for more jump scares, and something more akin to Hill House, then you need to look else where.
Bly is such a delicate and deliberate story, that unfurls so slowly, it crawls. I understand some will find this boring, and will likely give up watching after the first 3 episodes, but it is so perfectly placed, I would implore you to watch on until the end.
*Every* detail within Bly is precise.
I constantly felt like the walls, the flooring, paintings, and general decor were changing, but it was so subtle, and often hadn't at all, it is purposefully disorientating.
Even the camera angles are ever so slightly askew between each shot, the cinematography is unfalteringly gorgeous as a whole anyway.
The colour palate, and colour itself, becomes a character of its own, and was a joy to watch, and take note of.
The dark corners are so black, and add to the heaviness and gravity of any particular scene, leaving you constantly second guessing if you saw a ghost in the background, or if something did subtly change, and then importantly why.
For me, a great many of the characters are heart achingly powerful to watch. I was mesmerised by certain scenes, and I was so drawn in, I sometimes forgot they were delivering an absolutely powerful monologue, and haven't interacted with another character for a while.
For me this was absolutely an ensemble piece, it would not have worked without each moving part, and I would struggle to choose an outstanding performance, as they all delivered.
Some noteworthy topics!
The background ghosts blend in so sublimely, I am sure I missed plenty of them, including some obvious ones, but again that is all part of the absolute majesty of Bly, or 'The Haunting' series.
I would advise to try not to look for them on a first watch through, and let them come to you organically.
I've already seen some mention of this, and I expect it will become a bone of contention - the accents.
I will admit, at first I found some of the accents difficult to listen to, but they are so important, and key to a much larger arc. At first I thought someone needs to fire that voice acting coach! However, what they have done is actually absolutely stellar.
I could gush about the programme for a while but I will leave it here, and let each person decide for themselves what they enjoy about it!
Overall, the whole series is surprisingly poignant and heartfelt - not a lot of titles in the horror genre can claim that. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and will likely rewatch, something I haven't been overly inclined to do in recent years.
I so hope that audiences will enjoy this for what it is, and it won't be downplayed as being 'not as good as Hill House', as they are non-comparable to me.
Masterful! Please enjoy for the utter eye candy the whole thing is.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Elisabeth Moss - excellent performance (1 more)
Slowly creeping tension - clever camera work
Have you seen "The Invisible Man"?
Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is trapped in a highly controlling and violent relationship with technology mogul Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). Escaping from his fortress-like home, she lives in fear of his retribution. So she is much relieved, if a little surprised, at the report of his suicide. Now living with old friend James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid), Cecilia can finally start to relax. But as strange things start to happen, is the ghost of Griffin back to haunt her? Or is it really all in her rapidly disintegrating mind, as her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) and James suspect?
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.