Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Oct 15, 2021
I was on the fence about this one. On the one hand, Edgar Wright, on the other, a cast that didn’t inspire confidence. But, if nothing else, it was going to be a spectacle.
Eloise dreams of being a fashion designer, and when she gets accepted to study fashion in London she thinks her dreams have come true. But London life isn’t quite what she hoped. When life in halls becomes too much, she finds herself an attic room to rent. Noisy roommates might have been the easier option when suddenly, every night, Eloise is transported to the 60s where the life of Sandie unfolds in front of her. Swept away in the glamour, the tables turn when Sandie’s life beings to twist into a new stark reality.
The start of Last Night in Soho pulled me in, the music had me, if nothing else I knew I’d be able to enjoy myself with the soundtrack. It’s a very nostalgic bit of listening for me having been brought up in a household that’s listening was a little more retro.
As the story develops, and Eloise along with it, you’re eager for answers. But that process feels drawn out and at some point it’s easy to see where it’s going to go before it’s properly alluded to, which took away some of the impact for me.
Our main character Eloise (played by Thomasin McKenzie), definitely has the right look and demeanour for this part. While in the end it’s a good performance though, I feel like the role would have been better suited to someone a little less on the nose. They've conveyed the mental health portion of the role nicely (the depiction of her mother felt a little Harry Potter but did get the point across), and she managed to encapsulate some of the terror, but again, it felt… cheesy? Maybe not the right word, but it was close to not giving it enough impact in the story, and I could see this working more on the horror side of things with some changes.
Ahh, Anya. Another from my list of people on the credits that make me go “meh”. I was sold with this performance though. I'm not fully on the Joy train, but I very much enjoyed this performance. Her attitude and behaviour the whole way through sold the character and… that’s it… really great. (So many things I want to say and so many that constitute spoilers.)
The supporting cast has some big names. Diana Rigg in her last performance gave a much needed edge to the scenes she was in. Matt Smith was cockney Matt Smith. My only particular call out would be for the character rather than the actor. The role of Eloise’s “boyfriend” was verging on problematic, both from a boyfriend and a writing point of view. A wet blanket of a character that seemed to be too close to comic relief without committing one way or the other. Even allowing for some sort of “support” for Eloise, this role could have been divvied out to a selection of other characters.
Last Night in Soho is stylish. The homely naive Eloise meeting glam forward Sandie really came together, and seeing Sandie’s influence seeping into the present day in the fashion and demeanour was interesting. The colours, the sets, the costumes, you can’t fault any of it.
Not being an expert in cinematic mastery behind the scenes, some of these things can escape me, but even I couldn’t miss the stunning editing and effects. Everything is seamless, and when you see some of those scenes I’m sure you’ll be blown away too.
On the technical side, this film is probably very close to a 5 star film, but with the character issues I had and the feeling that there was something missing from the ending, I’m even now not sure what my score for Last Night in Soho is going to be...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/10/last-night-in-soho-movie-review.html
Eloise dreams of being a fashion designer, and when she gets accepted to study fashion in London she thinks her dreams have come true. But London life isn’t quite what she hoped. When life in halls becomes too much, she finds herself an attic room to rent. Noisy roommates might have been the easier option when suddenly, every night, Eloise is transported to the 60s where the life of Sandie unfolds in front of her. Swept away in the glamour, the tables turn when Sandie’s life beings to twist into a new stark reality.
The start of Last Night in Soho pulled me in, the music had me, if nothing else I knew I’d be able to enjoy myself with the soundtrack. It’s a very nostalgic bit of listening for me having been brought up in a household that’s listening was a little more retro.
As the story develops, and Eloise along with it, you’re eager for answers. But that process feels drawn out and at some point it’s easy to see where it’s going to go before it’s properly alluded to, which took away some of the impact for me.
Our main character Eloise (played by Thomasin McKenzie), definitely has the right look and demeanour for this part. While in the end it’s a good performance though, I feel like the role would have been better suited to someone a little less on the nose. They've conveyed the mental health portion of the role nicely (the depiction of her mother felt a little Harry Potter but did get the point across), and she managed to encapsulate some of the terror, but again, it felt… cheesy? Maybe not the right word, but it was close to not giving it enough impact in the story, and I could see this working more on the horror side of things with some changes.
Ahh, Anya. Another from my list of people on the credits that make me go “meh”. I was sold with this performance though. I'm not fully on the Joy train, but I very much enjoyed this performance. Her attitude and behaviour the whole way through sold the character and… that’s it… really great. (So many things I want to say and so many that constitute spoilers.)
The supporting cast has some big names. Diana Rigg in her last performance gave a much needed edge to the scenes she was in. Matt Smith was cockney Matt Smith. My only particular call out would be for the character rather than the actor. The role of Eloise’s “boyfriend” was verging on problematic, both from a boyfriend and a writing point of view. A wet blanket of a character that seemed to be too close to comic relief without committing one way or the other. Even allowing for some sort of “support” for Eloise, this role could have been divvied out to a selection of other characters.
Last Night in Soho is stylish. The homely naive Eloise meeting glam forward Sandie really came together, and seeing Sandie’s influence seeping into the present day in the fashion and demeanour was interesting. The colours, the sets, the costumes, you can’t fault any of it.
Not being an expert in cinematic mastery behind the scenes, some of these things can escape me, but even I couldn’t miss the stunning editing and effects. Everything is seamless, and when you see some of those scenes I’m sure you’ll be blown away too.
On the technical side, this film is probably very close to a 5 star film, but with the character issues I had and the feeling that there was something missing from the ending, I’m even now not sure what my score for Last Night in Soho is going to be...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/10/last-night-in-soho-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Hunger Games franchise has come at a time that is almost certain to gather box-office success. After Harry Potter finished two years ago and The Twilight Saga bowed out just 12 months ago, teenagers and young adults have been craving for a new series of blockbusters to ‘sink their teeth into’.
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
Louise (64 KP) rated The School For Good and Evil in Books
Jul 2, 2018
After bingeing the Harry Potter series I wasn't ready to let go of the fantasy world, I needed more wizards,witches and fantastical beasts. I saw Regan@peruseproject haul and talk about this book and the premise had me hooked.
It's starts off with two girls from the little village of Gavaldon, Every four years for the past 200 years 2 children are kidnapped by the 'Master'. One good and one bad child, it can be two girls,two boys or one of each are taken from their homes forever and believed to be sent to a school for fairy tales.
There is one child, Sophie who has lived for this moment, she is determined to become a princess and meet her Prince Charming and leave the dreary village for good. Sophie is beautiful,the most beautiful girl in Gavaldon and strives for perfection for she knows her time has come and to make sure she is picked she makes sure she carries out good deeds on a daily basis like befriending Agatha.
Agatha is the complete opposite from Sophie, she is not beautiful, she wears black frumpy clothes and keeps to herself. The night the 'Master' comes, children are locked up whereas Sophie encourages it by opening her window and leaving cookies. Agatha tries to rescue Sophie from the Master but just ends up being caught as well, hoping that they will be able to find their way home again.
All is not as planned, when Sophie is dropped into a river of Sludge she finds she has been put in the wrong school and there must have been a mix up of some sort as Agatha has been put in the good school. Sophie is to train to become a witch, henchman or some horrendous creature. With lessons on uglification and surviving Fairy-tales, she instantly seeks out the Headmaster to explain the mishap. Agatha is also out of her comfort zone with glamorous girls in pink dresses with only boys and manicure's on their minds, she wants to return home to Gavaldon as soon as possible but first she has to persuade Sophie. The master has other plans, will Sophie eventually get to the good side? will Agatha get to home?
The two castles are amazing, in the front of the book you get a map to view the two sides of the school. The good side, you have glass rooms,rooms made out of candy, groom rooms, everything possible to make you a princess. On the evil side, you have dungeons and torture chambers which smell of damp. The teachers in the school are composed of a two-headed dog that can remove their heads and attach to other bodies, there are werewolves, fairies, gargoyles,witches and princesses.
Sophie believes that she has been put into the wrong school however as you she develops throughout the book there are sides to her that are not always good. She was angry that she was put in the wrong school,I mean she has dreamed about this her whole life and will do anything to get there.
Agatha is an outcast in the school of good because she doesn't conform to wearing pink dresses and swooning whenever a boy is in the vicinity. However she is a really caring character and doesn't believe that she could ever be beautiful and nor do the others in the good school.
Then there is the love interest - of course there was going to be one! His name is Tedros and he is the most handsome boy in the school of good and not to forget King Arthur's son. He instantly gets all the girls attention, even Sophie's from the other side of the school.
I only had some minor problems with the book, I felt that the author was trying to describe too much at once and it became quite confusing to keep up with. The vanity in this book was overwhelming it set a clear line between ugly and beautiful. This is a middle grade book - impressionable teenagers are going to be reading this. You don't need to be beautiful on the outside the be a princess... it's what on the inside that counts.
This book was fast paced, easy to read (at points) and definitely worth a read if you love fairy tales.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
It's starts off with two girls from the little village of Gavaldon, Every four years for the past 200 years 2 children are kidnapped by the 'Master'. One good and one bad child, it can be two girls,two boys or one of each are taken from their homes forever and believed to be sent to a school for fairy tales.
There is one child, Sophie who has lived for this moment, she is determined to become a princess and meet her Prince Charming and leave the dreary village for good. Sophie is beautiful,the most beautiful girl in Gavaldon and strives for perfection for she knows her time has come and to make sure she is picked she makes sure she carries out good deeds on a daily basis like befriending Agatha.
Agatha is the complete opposite from Sophie, she is not beautiful, she wears black frumpy clothes and keeps to herself. The night the 'Master' comes, children are locked up whereas Sophie encourages it by opening her window and leaving cookies. Agatha tries to rescue Sophie from the Master but just ends up being caught as well, hoping that they will be able to find their way home again.
All is not as planned, when Sophie is dropped into a river of Sludge she finds she has been put in the wrong school and there must have been a mix up of some sort as Agatha has been put in the good school. Sophie is to train to become a witch, henchman or some horrendous creature. With lessons on uglification and surviving Fairy-tales, she instantly seeks out the Headmaster to explain the mishap. Agatha is also out of her comfort zone with glamorous girls in pink dresses with only boys and manicure's on their minds, she wants to return home to Gavaldon as soon as possible but first she has to persuade Sophie. The master has other plans, will Sophie eventually get to the good side? will Agatha get to home?
The two castles are amazing, in the front of the book you get a map to view the two sides of the school. The good side, you have glass rooms,rooms made out of candy, groom rooms, everything possible to make you a princess. On the evil side, you have dungeons and torture chambers which smell of damp. The teachers in the school are composed of a two-headed dog that can remove their heads and attach to other bodies, there are werewolves, fairies, gargoyles,witches and princesses.
Sophie believes that she has been put into the wrong school however as you she develops throughout the book there are sides to her that are not always good. She was angry that she was put in the wrong school,I mean she has dreamed about this her whole life and will do anything to get there.
Agatha is an outcast in the school of good because she doesn't conform to wearing pink dresses and swooning whenever a boy is in the vicinity. However she is a really caring character and doesn't believe that she could ever be beautiful and nor do the others in the good school.
Then there is the love interest - of course there was going to be one! His name is Tedros and he is the most handsome boy in the school of good and not to forget King Arthur's son. He instantly gets all the girls attention, even Sophie's from the other side of the school.
I only had some minor problems with the book, I felt that the author was trying to describe too much at once and it became quite confusing to keep up with. The vanity in this book was overwhelming it set a clear line between ugly and beautiful. This is a middle grade book - impressionable teenagers are going to be reading this. You don't need to be beautiful on the outside the be a princess... it's what on the inside that counts.
This book was fast paced, easy to read (at points) and definitely worth a read if you love fairy tales.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Open, black and white apart from Nimue's red dress.
Production notes: Try and make it noir-esque, but we need it done quickly so don't be too bothered by any of the class that goes with it.
As openings go it summed up the backstory quite nicely and Ian McShane's voiceover was good, but despite all of that it wasn't saved from it being quite badly shot.
I didn't want to start this review by moaning, but it's nearly impossible as there's a lot to moan about. I think I'm going to get it all out of the way now and then move on.
That CGI... at one point I wrote down that it was Harry Potter bad, I'm talking Voldemort on the back of the head bad. I'm trying to think of an obvious effect where it was actually good but I'm drawing a blank. Gruagach, our pig-demon-thing, looked like he was wearing a Halloween mask, but had it been real life I suspect it would look better.
Generally the creature effects are terrible, I was briefly hopeful for the giants but then the fight started and things got progressively worse. The blood was a particularly bad offering. I was particularly annoyed with this scene because the bits where Hellboy is thrown around were actually quite good and with a little work it could have been amazing.
Major Ben Daimio, played by Daniel Dae Kim, also got some punishing CGI for his transformation, unfortunately the negativity doesn't stop there. I just couldn't understand what that accent was about... I just... what the... ugh.
He's not the only character that's treated badly. Alice has so much potential in her but it isn't until the end that she discovers what she's really capable of. I can't help but think that they could have used her more to boost the movie.
David Harbour as Hellboy doesn't have me convinced. he's got the laid back attitude and some of the banter that the part needs, but there was a spark missing for me. Perhaps he was slightly more horizontal than laid back.
Quite possibly the best scene in the movie is right at the end when we see the group back together briefly. This scene was so well done that I was a little irritated they didn't manage to replicate that earlier in the film.
Hellboy is probably too long, there are definitely pieces to cut out. As much as I love her, Big Mo has to go, I'd also cut out Baba Yaga. The effects were overly creepy and the scenes added hardly anything apart from what felt like an obvious set up for a sequel.
The story overall isn't that bad, I like the origin of Hellboy, although baby Hellboy felt a lot like they'd taken the Ally McBeal baby and painted it red. I also liked the fact that they didn't let him instantly take the easy route to victory, that really worked in his favour.
I've realised at this point that I haven't really mentioned Nimue. She's one of the main villains, I probably should have talked about her by now but apart from the assembly scene she's not overly memorable, much like most of the other bad guys.
As a last passing note I want to mention the music. I noticed it a lot and it was frequently very good, it certainly helped the transition scenes. I probably would have turned the volume down a bit, but it was a great selection so I don't think it's too much of a problem.
I should probably stop waffling at this point. Despite what has amounted to a lot of moaning and griping Hellboy wasn't a waste of my time. I know lots of you are going to disagree with me on that point. To be entertaining given all of those faults I nitpicked was a great achievement. It delivers on daft action and sometimes that's all I need to have an amusing time at the cinema. We probably just need to keep our fingers crossed for better effects if they come out with a sequel.
What you should do
I would go and see it at the cinema if I were you. If you can get past the fact it isn't Ron Perlman and there's a severe lack of kittens then you're bound to have some fun.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some spirit powers would be quite fun, minus the vomiting part.
Production notes: Try and make it noir-esque, but we need it done quickly so don't be too bothered by any of the class that goes with it.
As openings go it summed up the backstory quite nicely and Ian McShane's voiceover was good, but despite all of that it wasn't saved from it being quite badly shot.
I didn't want to start this review by moaning, but it's nearly impossible as there's a lot to moan about. I think I'm going to get it all out of the way now and then move on.
That CGI... at one point I wrote down that it was Harry Potter bad, I'm talking Voldemort on the back of the head bad. I'm trying to think of an obvious effect where it was actually good but I'm drawing a blank. Gruagach, our pig-demon-thing, looked like he was wearing a Halloween mask, but had it been real life I suspect it would look better.
Generally the creature effects are terrible, I was briefly hopeful for the giants but then the fight started and things got progressively worse. The blood was a particularly bad offering. I was particularly annoyed with this scene because the bits where Hellboy is thrown around were actually quite good and with a little work it could have been amazing.
Major Ben Daimio, played by Daniel Dae Kim, also got some punishing CGI for his transformation, unfortunately the negativity doesn't stop there. I just couldn't understand what that accent was about... I just... what the... ugh.
He's not the only character that's treated badly. Alice has so much potential in her but it isn't until the end that she discovers what she's really capable of. I can't help but think that they could have used her more to boost the movie.
David Harbour as Hellboy doesn't have me convinced. he's got the laid back attitude and some of the banter that the part needs, but there was a spark missing for me. Perhaps he was slightly more horizontal than laid back.
Quite possibly the best scene in the movie is right at the end when we see the group back together briefly. This scene was so well done that I was a little irritated they didn't manage to replicate that earlier in the film.
Hellboy is probably too long, there are definitely pieces to cut out. As much as I love her, Big Mo has to go, I'd also cut out Baba Yaga. The effects were overly creepy and the scenes added hardly anything apart from what felt like an obvious set up for a sequel.
The story overall isn't that bad, I like the origin of Hellboy, although baby Hellboy felt a lot like they'd taken the Ally McBeal baby and painted it red. I also liked the fact that they didn't let him instantly take the easy route to victory, that really worked in his favour.
I've realised at this point that I haven't really mentioned Nimue. She's one of the main villains, I probably should have talked about her by now but apart from the assembly scene she's not overly memorable, much like most of the other bad guys.
As a last passing note I want to mention the music. I noticed it a lot and it was frequently very good, it certainly helped the transition scenes. I probably would have turned the volume down a bit, but it was a great selection so I don't think it's too much of a problem.
I should probably stop waffling at this point. Despite what has amounted to a lot of moaning and griping Hellboy wasn't a waste of my time. I know lots of you are going to disagree with me on that point. To be entertaining given all of those faults I nitpicked was a great achievement. It delivers on daft action and sometimes that's all I need to have an amusing time at the cinema. We probably just need to keep our fingers crossed for better effects if they come out with a sequel.
What you should do
I would go and see it at the cinema if I were you. If you can get past the fact it isn't Ron Perlman and there's a severe lack of kittens then you're bound to have some fun.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some spirit powers would be quite fun, minus the vomiting part.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
These X-Men end not with a Bang but with a Whimper
"This is how it ends,not with a bang, but with a whimper".
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Grimworld: Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock in Books
Oct 10, 2019
Lately, I've been reading more Middle Grade books. There's just something refreshing about them. When the opportunity to read Grimworld by Avery Moray arose, I just couldn't say no. I love Middle Grade books as I've just said, and I love books that have a creepy, spooky factor. Grimworld checked both of those boxes. I will say that I enjoyed this short read for sure.
Thirteen year old Henry Bats lives in an eccentric world where all sorts of paranormal creatures lurk. Most of the time, he isn't really scared as this is just a normal thing to him. When one of these paranormal creatures scares him into helping it as well as promising him whatever he wants in return, Henry agrees. This turns out to be a deadly mistake because in return, instead of the comic book he wanted, Henry is now stuck with a pocket watch around his neck telling him when he will die. Part of Henry's life has been stolen away, and now he must figure out a way to get his life back or die in the process.
The plot for Grimworld was definitely intriguing and original. I loved all the crazy creature names and the world in which Henry lived. It sort of reminded me of the Harry Potter world in a way. There is plenty of action throughout the book, and I found myself really rooting for Henry and his friends. There's definitely some scary scenes in there, but I don't think it would be overly scary for middle graders who love horror. There are a few minor plot twists in there which aren't too predictable which is great! Although there is no real cliff hanger, Avery Moray does leave this book open for a sequel.
For the most part, Moray does a fantastic job at pitching to her target age group of around 11 - 13 years of age. She uses silly words throughout which children are sure to enjoy. However, sometimes the language may be a bit difficult for that age group due to more difficult words or as I like to call them "big words." Luckily, this doesn't happen that often. Also, there is a point in the book where Moray mentions pay phones and receivers which young kids may not know about in this day and age. Another thing I found a wee bit strange was that Henry's parents are always referred to by their actual names, Gobbert and Mildred, instead of mom and dad. While I know that some kids refer to their parents by their actual names, the majority of children do not. I felt it would have been a bit easier for children to reference Henry's parents as mom and dad instead of as Mildred and Gobbert.
The pacing is done beautifully in Grimworld. Although this is a middle grade read, this book still held my attention throughout. I was always looking forward to how the story would progress. I had to know if Henry and his friends would escape their horrible fate of the life that was stolen from them. This is also a short read, so I think children will have no problem reading Grimworld.
Character development was on point throughout Grimworld, and I really did feel as if every character acted their age. I admired Henry's determination to not only help himself but his other friends that were facing the same problem as him. I loved his quest to stop at nothing to find a solution. Lang was one of my favorite characters. I felt bad for what he had been through, and I guess that made me really bond with him. It was interesting to hear about his life. Hattie, Henry's younger sister, was also a great character. It was obvious she cared a lot about her brother all throughout the book. Persi was also a favorite of mine simply because I loved her dress sense and personality!
Trigger warnings for Grimworld include death (although it's nothing too heavy), minor violence, and paranormal creatures. However, this is a fantasy horror book so keep that in mind. I don't think it's too dark or overly scary when it comes to the age group it's written for.
Overall, Grimworld is a spooky read with fantastic characters and a great plot which will suck you right in! I would recommend Grimworld by Avery Moray to those aged 11 to 13 years of age who love a quirky spooky read. I'd also recommend it to adults as well who enjoy middle grade fantasy horror. You'll definitely be entertained by this book!
--
(A special thank you to Avery Moray for providing me with a paperback of Grimworld in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Thirteen year old Henry Bats lives in an eccentric world where all sorts of paranormal creatures lurk. Most of the time, he isn't really scared as this is just a normal thing to him. When one of these paranormal creatures scares him into helping it as well as promising him whatever he wants in return, Henry agrees. This turns out to be a deadly mistake because in return, instead of the comic book he wanted, Henry is now stuck with a pocket watch around his neck telling him when he will die. Part of Henry's life has been stolen away, and now he must figure out a way to get his life back or die in the process.
The plot for Grimworld was definitely intriguing and original. I loved all the crazy creature names and the world in which Henry lived. It sort of reminded me of the Harry Potter world in a way. There is plenty of action throughout the book, and I found myself really rooting for Henry and his friends. There's definitely some scary scenes in there, but I don't think it would be overly scary for middle graders who love horror. There are a few minor plot twists in there which aren't too predictable which is great! Although there is no real cliff hanger, Avery Moray does leave this book open for a sequel.
For the most part, Moray does a fantastic job at pitching to her target age group of around 11 - 13 years of age. She uses silly words throughout which children are sure to enjoy. However, sometimes the language may be a bit difficult for that age group due to more difficult words or as I like to call them "big words." Luckily, this doesn't happen that often. Also, there is a point in the book where Moray mentions pay phones and receivers which young kids may not know about in this day and age. Another thing I found a wee bit strange was that Henry's parents are always referred to by their actual names, Gobbert and Mildred, instead of mom and dad. While I know that some kids refer to their parents by their actual names, the majority of children do not. I felt it would have been a bit easier for children to reference Henry's parents as mom and dad instead of as Mildred and Gobbert.
The pacing is done beautifully in Grimworld. Although this is a middle grade read, this book still held my attention throughout. I was always looking forward to how the story would progress. I had to know if Henry and his friends would escape their horrible fate of the life that was stolen from them. This is also a short read, so I think children will have no problem reading Grimworld.
Character development was on point throughout Grimworld, and I really did feel as if every character acted their age. I admired Henry's determination to not only help himself but his other friends that were facing the same problem as him. I loved his quest to stop at nothing to find a solution. Lang was one of my favorite characters. I felt bad for what he had been through, and I guess that made me really bond with him. It was interesting to hear about his life. Hattie, Henry's younger sister, was also a great character. It was obvious she cared a lot about her brother all throughout the book. Persi was also a favorite of mine simply because I loved her dress sense and personality!
Trigger warnings for Grimworld include death (although it's nothing too heavy), minor violence, and paranormal creatures. However, this is a fantasy horror book so keep that in mind. I don't think it's too dark or overly scary when it comes to the age group it's written for.
Overall, Grimworld is a spooky read with fantastic characters and a great plot which will suck you right in! I would recommend Grimworld by Avery Moray to those aged 11 to 13 years of age who love a quirky spooky read. I'd also recommend it to adults as well who enjoy middle grade fantasy horror. You'll definitely be entertained by this book!
--
(A special thank you to Avery Moray for providing me with a paperback of Grimworld in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.