Search
Search results
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Terror is Our Business in Books
May 30, 2018
Terror is Our Business is the first time I’ve ever read Joe or Kasey Lansdale. I love horror, but by all accounts I’m not nearly as wide read in it as I should be. (At least not when it comes to the more well-known names.) I was a bit nervous about accepting a free copy of the book for review consideration because of that. However, I figured this might give me a taste of Lansdale’s writing to see if I wanted to pursue other works from him.
This was a set of seven stories, six having been previously printed. There are four stories from Joe R. Lansdale alone, and then Kasey’s character, Jana, gets introduced and the rest of the stories are dual-written. It also contains an introduction from Joe Lansdale talking about the formation of the Dana Roberts’ series, and how it has changed. There’s a similar introduction from Kasey’s point of view when the Jana-inclusive stories are getting ready to be told.
Dana and Jana are a good contrast to each other. Dana is rich, well-educated, and a bit of a snob. I initially liked her quite a bit, but over time she started to annoy me a tad. I did appreciate the fact that she was a self-professed atheist, though (who wasn’t evil! Imagine that!) She’s very good at what she does, but she’s not exactly the type of person I want to spend any considerable amount of time around. Jana, on the other hand, is more down to earth. She’s a bit crude, has no filter, and isn’t exactly the picture of grace that Dana is. Needless to say, I liked Jana a whole lot more. I think Dana and Jana have the potential to develop a rapport as a team that will be consistently engaging. However, to be quite honest, I don’t think they’re there yet. There are enough hints of a relationship forming that I would definitely pick up more, but at this point it’s on potential rather than true enjoyment of the series. I hope Nora and Gary aren’t completely written out of the series, either. I liked them both, what little we got to see, and would love to see them on page a bit more.
Anyways, here’s my breakdown.
*The Case of the Lighthouse Shambler and The Case of the Creeping Shadow were the least liked ones from the book. The format is okay, but the way Dana relays things is so stiff and formal that it’s hard to get into. I liked the edge of horror they had, but couldn’t connect.
*The Case of the 4 Acre Haunt got my attention. I had never heard of that type of tree, but the way Joe Landsdale described it, and what happened in the woods was definitely creepy!
*The Case of the Angry Traveler was my favorite of the solely Dana cases. This one was a sci-fi horror, and even though it wasn’t really ever scary, it was interesting, and I liked the ending.
*Blind Love, the story following Angry Traveler was lovely. It disgusted me, but it also delighted me. I almost instantly felt a lot more connected to the stories when the humorous element was introduced.
*The Case of the Bleeding Wall made me like Dana a little bit more. It showed that yes, even though she’s stiff and formal, she’s definitely human, and what she experienced truly bothered her.
*The Case of the Ragman’s Anguish wasn’t as good as The Case of the Bleeding Wall, but I still enjoyed it, and the scene in the car made my skin prickle a bit.
My favorite case in the book was Blind Love, with The Case of the Angry Traveler being a close second.
Joe and Kasey Lansdale are a wonderful team and Terror is Our Business is a solid collection of stories with a supernormal (sometimes Lovecraftian) bent to them. For those of you that read J.D. Robb’s In Death series, I think you’ll recognize a bit of the Eve and Peabody relationship with Dana and Jana. I hope to see more works from the father-daughter team in the future.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for review consideration.
This was a set of seven stories, six having been previously printed. There are four stories from Joe R. Lansdale alone, and then Kasey’s character, Jana, gets introduced and the rest of the stories are dual-written. It also contains an introduction from Joe Lansdale talking about the formation of the Dana Roberts’ series, and how it has changed. There’s a similar introduction from Kasey’s point of view when the Jana-inclusive stories are getting ready to be told.
Dana and Jana are a good contrast to each other. Dana is rich, well-educated, and a bit of a snob. I initially liked her quite a bit, but over time she started to annoy me a tad. I did appreciate the fact that she was a self-professed atheist, though (who wasn’t evil! Imagine that!) She’s very good at what she does, but she’s not exactly the type of person I want to spend any considerable amount of time around. Jana, on the other hand, is more down to earth. She’s a bit crude, has no filter, and isn’t exactly the picture of grace that Dana is. Needless to say, I liked Jana a whole lot more. I think Dana and Jana have the potential to develop a rapport as a team that will be consistently engaging. However, to be quite honest, I don’t think they’re there yet. There are enough hints of a relationship forming that I would definitely pick up more, but at this point it’s on potential rather than true enjoyment of the series. I hope Nora and Gary aren’t completely written out of the series, either. I liked them both, what little we got to see, and would love to see them on page a bit more.
Anyways, here’s my breakdown.
*The Case of the Lighthouse Shambler and The Case of the Creeping Shadow were the least liked ones from the book. The format is okay, but the way Dana relays things is so stiff and formal that it’s hard to get into. I liked the edge of horror they had, but couldn’t connect.
*The Case of the 4 Acre Haunt got my attention. I had never heard of that type of tree, but the way Joe Landsdale described it, and what happened in the woods was definitely creepy!
*The Case of the Angry Traveler was my favorite of the solely Dana cases. This one was a sci-fi horror, and even though it wasn’t really ever scary, it was interesting, and I liked the ending.
*Blind Love, the story following Angry Traveler was lovely. It disgusted me, but it also delighted me. I almost instantly felt a lot more connected to the stories when the humorous element was introduced.
*The Case of the Bleeding Wall made me like Dana a little bit more. It showed that yes, even though she’s stiff and formal, she’s definitely human, and what she experienced truly bothered her.
*The Case of the Ragman’s Anguish wasn’t as good as The Case of the Bleeding Wall, but I still enjoyed it, and the scene in the car made my skin prickle a bit.
My favorite case in the book was Blind Love, with The Case of the Angry Traveler being a close second.
Joe and Kasey Lansdale are a wonderful team and Terror is Our Business is a solid collection of stories with a supernormal (sometimes Lovecraftian) bent to them. For those of you that read J.D. Robb’s In Death series, I think you’ll recognize a bit of the Eve and Peabody relationship with Dana and Jana. I hope to see more works from the father-daughter team in the future.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for review consideration.
The story. (3 more)
The writing.
Thomas Fawkes.
The emotions I went through reading this. (Yes it's here twice for a reason.)
A gripping, heartfelt historical read that will take you on an adventure.
When I first picked up Fawkes by Nadine Brandes, it was for a blog tour that I was lucky enough to get (thank you so much!). I started reading it and only got three chapters read before I had to put it down because I just. Could. Not. Get. Into. It. I'm awfully glad that I picked it back up to actually reread the first three chapters and finish the book because this is my favorite book of September.
Legit, this is a five-star read for me. There's so much sarcasm, humor, history packed into this little story that I just didn't want it to end. If Nadine Brandes ever creates a second book regarding this storyline, I will be the first person to buy it and support it. Because dang woman, you have a way to make me tear up and then get all angry at a character in a matter of pages.
Okay, let's talk about some of these humorous quotes that I just can't get over.
"If you do not agree to all my terms, Thomas Fawkes, then I shall tell my guardian that you forced yourself upon me and - after he castrates you - he will string you up on the gallows without a tongue!" Okay Emma, he knows not to mess with you. You strong and independent amazing human being. I think I love you. (Can you actually fall in love with a fictional character?)
" ' There's no we,' Kit muttered in Jack's ear. 'Percy didn't even detect an intruder - the boy did.' " - SHOTS FIRED!
" 'Annika! Gabriel! Do you want to turn to stone?' " I just think this is so funny but it's true. Like you keep messing with that plagued rat, you ain't gonna look much different.
Can we talk about how descriptive Nadine is with things?! Like for real, I haven't heard anybody talking about that! So, without further adieu here are some of my favorite descriptive quotes:
"The darkness twisted invisible chains around my chest." Holy poopers. Like dang. This is a great representation of anxiety if anybody wants to know.
" 'His past is not without its bloodstains.' I joined him at the window. The grime rested too thickly for us to see out into the night. Another thing for me to clean upon the morrow. ' Should we do something?' 'Our fists are no match for a rabid mutt's teeth. We must leave a man's actions to his one conscience.' " Okay, I got chills when reading this. This is one serious moment but at the same time a jab at how gross London used to be.
"A line of freckles ascended from her left upper lip and ended beneath her eye... like a constellation on a night sky." I dig it and what a way to describe somebody's feature. I wish my husband was all gooey like Thomas Fawkes when it came to Emma.
The next few quotes are moments where I had to stop reading and just think, because they hit me with a burning passion for making me emotional.
"He said that he must bring on only those men who were necessary to the plot's fulfillment. The men who were irreplaceable. That spoke volumes about each man he'd chosen. Because he'd chosen me." Thomas is wanted, not just by his father but by a group of men that become his family. I feel you Thomas, you emotional man.
"I wanted my mask because I was ashamed of what people saw when they looked at me. I hated being defined by my plague and I was sick of being helpless. I wanted a future." STAY AWAY FROM MY THOMAS YOU NUGGETS. I KNOW KARATE AND I WILL USE IT. But seriously, why you gotta be so mean?
"If I was as inconspicuous as Catesby said I would be... why not simply kill the king on my own? In fact, why not turn his masquerade into an assassination?" Thomas you smart man. But don't go getting yourself killed. Emma (and I) need you to survive and stay with her (us).
Legit, this is a five-star read for me. There's so much sarcasm, humor, history packed into this little story that I just didn't want it to end. If Nadine Brandes ever creates a second book regarding this storyline, I will be the first person to buy it and support it. Because dang woman, you have a way to make me tear up and then get all angry at a character in a matter of pages.
Okay, let's talk about some of these humorous quotes that I just can't get over.
"If you do not agree to all my terms, Thomas Fawkes, then I shall tell my guardian that you forced yourself upon me and - after he castrates you - he will string you up on the gallows without a tongue!" Okay Emma, he knows not to mess with you. You strong and independent amazing human being. I think I love you. (Can you actually fall in love with a fictional character?)
" ' There's no we,' Kit muttered in Jack's ear. 'Percy didn't even detect an intruder - the boy did.' " - SHOTS FIRED!
" 'Annika! Gabriel! Do you want to turn to stone?' " I just think this is so funny but it's true. Like you keep messing with that plagued rat, you ain't gonna look much different.
Can we talk about how descriptive Nadine is with things?! Like for real, I haven't heard anybody talking about that! So, without further adieu here are some of my favorite descriptive quotes:
"The darkness twisted invisible chains around my chest." Holy poopers. Like dang. This is a great representation of anxiety if anybody wants to know.
" 'His past is not without its bloodstains.' I joined him at the window. The grime rested too thickly for us to see out into the night. Another thing for me to clean upon the morrow. ' Should we do something?' 'Our fists are no match for a rabid mutt's teeth. We must leave a man's actions to his one conscience.' " Okay, I got chills when reading this. This is one serious moment but at the same time a jab at how gross London used to be.
"A line of freckles ascended from her left upper lip and ended beneath her eye... like a constellation on a night sky." I dig it and what a way to describe somebody's feature. I wish my husband was all gooey like Thomas Fawkes when it came to Emma.
The next few quotes are moments where I had to stop reading and just think, because they hit me with a burning passion for making me emotional.
"He said that he must bring on only those men who were necessary to the plot's fulfillment. The men who were irreplaceable. That spoke volumes about each man he'd chosen. Because he'd chosen me." Thomas is wanted, not just by his father but by a group of men that become his family. I feel you Thomas, you emotional man.
"I wanted my mask because I was ashamed of what people saw when they looked at me. I hated being defined by my plague and I was sick of being helpless. I wanted a future." STAY AWAY FROM MY THOMAS YOU NUGGETS. I KNOW KARATE AND I WILL USE IT. But seriously, why you gotta be so mean?
"If I was as inconspicuous as Catesby said I would be... why not simply kill the king on my own? In fact, why not turn his masquerade into an assassination?" Thomas you smart man. But don't go getting yourself killed. Emma (and I) need you to survive and stay with her (us).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Slither (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Mixing elements of The Blob, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Night of the Creeps and countless other horror films, the new Horror/Comedy Slither has oozed its way into theaters with a mix that will likely delight hardcore horror fans.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
This was a massive turn out for an Unlimited Screening, the last time it was this busy was when we had the secret screening for The Incredibles 2. I guess everyone loves a bit of action, I know I do, so thank you very much, Cineworld.
Captain Sparkle Fingers amused and entertained, and it produced some of those goosebump moments you get from the anticipation. This is going to be a winner of the East period with the schools being out, I think that means I'll be avoiding the cinema for a bit.
I was concerned early on as it was a rather slow start and the tone was nothing like what we'd been seeing in the promotional material, but once that stumbling block was out of the way we started down a very fun path.
Billy Batson's search for his birth mother lands him with a new foster situation after his antics are no longer tolerated by his previous home. There he meets his new family who have a spectacular amount of alliterative name. Freddy Freeman, Darla Dudley, Victor Vasquez, Pedro Peña, (I really do think that alliteration should be mandatory in super movies) and the rather less rhythmic Rosa Vasquez, Mary Bromfield and Eugene Choi.
Billy is set on not being part of the family until two bullies set upon Freddy outside school, his instincts kick in and he wades in to protect him. This act catches the attention of The Wizard, Shazam, and knowing that the world needs a saviour he bestows his power on Billy.
The fact that Billy probably would have failed to be worthy of the power, or declined it, does sit a little heavy when you see it in the film. But we know that it eventually comes good so I let it slide.
Shazam is a massive departure for DC, it's very Marvel meets Teen Titans GO! To The Movies. It feels a little like the film is fighting with the brand's roots though, there's obviously a darkness around our villain but when you compare it to the goofy nature of the hero side it begins to feel like two different films. Had either of those films been made on their own I don't think we'd have been in for something quite so entertaining.
By far the most entertaining bits of Shazam are when we see Billy and Freddy exploring what superpowers Captain Sparkle Fingers has. Keep an eye out for the teleportation test, that was my favourite. I could quite happily have watched an entire film of these scenes.
I don't think there are many people out there that could have played this role, Zachary Levi is certainly the right fit. The childlike glee is so good that I can't help but think he was channelling Chuck Bartowski. I think there's something even more appealing about characters when the character gets to be a little wacky and act outside the expected. Jack Black in Jumanji, Tom Hanks in Big, Paul Rudd briefly in Ant-Man And The Wasp, they all produced some really amusing moments.
Mark Strong is brilliant, in general as well as in this film. I love him being menacing. He does a superb job with what he's given but I would have loved him to have had a few humorous moments in the whole lolfest. Being the serious thing in a film with so much humour wasn't a great situation to be in.
The family aspect in the movie is a strong theme throughout and our band of actors all work well as a team. I'm sad to say that individually I'm not a real fan of any of the characters apart from perhaps Eugene and his video games, but when they're together it's a great dynamic.
Shazam manages to be both brilliant and terrible all at the same time. Despite its identity crisis it is still a great film, I came out feeling happy and entertained, and that's all you really ask for in a movie.
What you should do
If you love superhero movies then definitely fit it into your schedule, you'll definitely be entertained.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've said Shazam a lot over the last week and I've been hoping for some superpowers but nothing is happening... yet... SHAZAM!
Captain Sparkle Fingers amused and entertained, and it produced some of those goosebump moments you get from the anticipation. This is going to be a winner of the East period with the schools being out, I think that means I'll be avoiding the cinema for a bit.
I was concerned early on as it was a rather slow start and the tone was nothing like what we'd been seeing in the promotional material, but once that stumbling block was out of the way we started down a very fun path.
Billy Batson's search for his birth mother lands him with a new foster situation after his antics are no longer tolerated by his previous home. There he meets his new family who have a spectacular amount of alliterative name. Freddy Freeman, Darla Dudley, Victor Vasquez, Pedro Peña, (I really do think that alliteration should be mandatory in super movies) and the rather less rhythmic Rosa Vasquez, Mary Bromfield and Eugene Choi.
Billy is set on not being part of the family until two bullies set upon Freddy outside school, his instincts kick in and he wades in to protect him. This act catches the attention of The Wizard, Shazam, and knowing that the world needs a saviour he bestows his power on Billy.
The fact that Billy probably would have failed to be worthy of the power, or declined it, does sit a little heavy when you see it in the film. But we know that it eventually comes good so I let it slide.
Shazam is a massive departure for DC, it's very Marvel meets Teen Titans GO! To The Movies. It feels a little like the film is fighting with the brand's roots though, there's obviously a darkness around our villain but when you compare it to the goofy nature of the hero side it begins to feel like two different films. Had either of those films been made on their own I don't think we'd have been in for something quite so entertaining.
By far the most entertaining bits of Shazam are when we see Billy and Freddy exploring what superpowers Captain Sparkle Fingers has. Keep an eye out for the teleportation test, that was my favourite. I could quite happily have watched an entire film of these scenes.
I don't think there are many people out there that could have played this role, Zachary Levi is certainly the right fit. The childlike glee is so good that I can't help but think he was channelling Chuck Bartowski. I think there's something even more appealing about characters when the character gets to be a little wacky and act outside the expected. Jack Black in Jumanji, Tom Hanks in Big, Paul Rudd briefly in Ant-Man And The Wasp, they all produced some really amusing moments.
Mark Strong is brilliant, in general as well as in this film. I love him being menacing. He does a superb job with what he's given but I would have loved him to have had a few humorous moments in the whole lolfest. Being the serious thing in a film with so much humour wasn't a great situation to be in.
The family aspect in the movie is a strong theme throughout and our band of actors all work well as a team. I'm sad to say that individually I'm not a real fan of any of the characters apart from perhaps Eugene and his video games, but when they're together it's a great dynamic.
Shazam manages to be both brilliant and terrible all at the same time. Despite its identity crisis it is still a great film, I came out feeling happy and entertained, and that's all you really ask for in a movie.
What you should do
If you love superhero movies then definitely fit it into your schedule, you'll definitely be entertained.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've said Shazam a lot over the last week and I've been hoping for some superpowers but nothing is happening... yet... SHAZAM!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Arctic (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
This week has been one of the coldest on record across much of the United States. The “polar vortex” has brought with it sub-zero temps complete with snow and ice. It seems only fitting that Arctic a survival movie co-written and directed by YouTube star Joe Penna would be releasing the very same week. In his first feature film directorial debut Penna brings both the beauty and the dangers of the Arctic (Iceland in this case) to the big screen.
A lone man identified only as Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen) has crashed his cargo plane somewhere in the arctic. We don’t know how long he has been stranded there, but long enough for him to have carved out a giant S.O.S in the snow. He has converted his downed plane into his new home and goes about the same routine every day. He sets his watch alarm to keep his schedule, which involves catching fish through the ice, and setting out in a different direction each day to manually wind his transponder in the hopes that a rescue will finally come.
One day, a day like countless days before it, Overgård’s transponder turns from red to green and in the distance a helicopter appears. His lucky day soon turns into tragedy as the harsh winds of the Arctic toss the helicopter around like a kite in a hurricane, crashing it to the ground. Overgård quickly runs to the crash site only to find that one of the pilots has died in the crash, and the other (Maria Thelma Smáradôttir) is barely conscious and has a gaping wound in her side. In a scene that could almost be described as humorous (if it wasn’t for the dire situation itself), Overgård crafts a sled out of the helicopter’s sliding door to carry the woman back to the safety of his plane, only to find out the next day that inside the helicopter was an actual rescue sled.
Sadly, it isn’t long before the young pilot’s wound begins to fester that Overgård must make a choice. Stay in the little slice of heaven that he has carved up for himself or risk the forces of nature in an effort to save the woman’s life. With a map he recovered from the downed helicopter, Overgård is able to identify an outpost and carefully plots out the journey that will take them there. The journey he plans for will take several days and has numerous obstacles to overcome. Yet, with a heart that clearly is as large as the vastness of the arctic itself, he realizes he has no choice.
Arctic is a movie with very little dialog, other than an occasional comment to himself or an attempt to rouse his unconscious guest. For a movie that says so little it’s the atmosphere that says so much. The film attempts to capture the harsh conditions that Overgård faces along his journey and does it so brilliantly that you can almost feel the icy weight as it bears down. The audience struggles with every wintery step as if they are not only spectators, but active participants in the journey. The scenery is as awe inspiring as it is deadly. The music seamlessly blends into the environment to a point where you are aware it’s there but doesn’t break the immersion.
Arctic could almost be mistaken as a documentary, a film about one mans survival in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. Its pacing is deliberate, even if it is a bit slow at times. There is little need to add extra flair or danger into the mix, because nature alone provides it in spades. Arctic is not a movie that will appeal to those looking for non-stop action. At its heart it is really a movie about man vs nature, and nature can be a beast all its own. Arctic is certainly a movie for those looking for something a bit different. For those who are looking for a survival movie that doesn’t take place on a deserted isle, then this is right up your alley. Arctic shows that sometimes realism is far more interesting than fiction.
A lone man identified only as Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen) has crashed his cargo plane somewhere in the arctic. We don’t know how long he has been stranded there, but long enough for him to have carved out a giant S.O.S in the snow. He has converted his downed plane into his new home and goes about the same routine every day. He sets his watch alarm to keep his schedule, which involves catching fish through the ice, and setting out in a different direction each day to manually wind his transponder in the hopes that a rescue will finally come.
One day, a day like countless days before it, Overgård’s transponder turns from red to green and in the distance a helicopter appears. His lucky day soon turns into tragedy as the harsh winds of the Arctic toss the helicopter around like a kite in a hurricane, crashing it to the ground. Overgård quickly runs to the crash site only to find that one of the pilots has died in the crash, and the other (Maria Thelma Smáradôttir) is barely conscious and has a gaping wound in her side. In a scene that could almost be described as humorous (if it wasn’t for the dire situation itself), Overgård crafts a sled out of the helicopter’s sliding door to carry the woman back to the safety of his plane, only to find out the next day that inside the helicopter was an actual rescue sled.
Sadly, it isn’t long before the young pilot’s wound begins to fester that Overgård must make a choice. Stay in the little slice of heaven that he has carved up for himself or risk the forces of nature in an effort to save the woman’s life. With a map he recovered from the downed helicopter, Overgård is able to identify an outpost and carefully plots out the journey that will take them there. The journey he plans for will take several days and has numerous obstacles to overcome. Yet, with a heart that clearly is as large as the vastness of the arctic itself, he realizes he has no choice.
Arctic is a movie with very little dialog, other than an occasional comment to himself or an attempt to rouse his unconscious guest. For a movie that says so little it’s the atmosphere that says so much. The film attempts to capture the harsh conditions that Overgård faces along his journey and does it so brilliantly that you can almost feel the icy weight as it bears down. The audience struggles with every wintery step as if they are not only spectators, but active participants in the journey. The scenery is as awe inspiring as it is deadly. The music seamlessly blends into the environment to a point where you are aware it’s there but doesn’t break the immersion.
Arctic could almost be mistaken as a documentary, a film about one mans survival in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. Its pacing is deliberate, even if it is a bit slow at times. There is little need to add extra flair or danger into the mix, because nature alone provides it in spades. Arctic is not a movie that will appeal to those looking for non-stop action. At its heart it is really a movie about man vs nature, and nature can be a beast all its own. Arctic is certainly a movie for those looking for something a bit different. For those who are looking for a survival movie that doesn’t take place on a deserted isle, then this is right up your alley. Arctic shows that sometimes realism is far more interesting than fiction.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Veronica Mars (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The incomparable Rob Thomas has delivered a masterpiece of dramatic film that all Veronica Mars fans will thoroughly enjoy.
(Note: I am a rabid fan of the Veronica Mars TV series. Much of the review will be clearly colored by this.)
10 years after the debut of an exceptional TV show, and eight years after it was unceremoniously pulled from the airwaves, Rob Thomas put up a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie. It had a goal of $2 million, which would get the movie made — but it wouldn’t get us much.
As it turned out, 91,585 people liked his plan to create a film that would wrap up storylines from the series. They liked it enough that rather than pledging just $2 million, the backers generated over $5.7 million.
In the process of doing so, they achieved a number of amazing Kickstarter awards:
Fastest project to reach $1 million.
Fastest project to reach $2 million.
All-time highest-funded project in the FILM category.
Third-highest-funded project in Kickstarter history.
Most project backers of any project in Kickstarter history.
On to the movie itself.
The movies share its title with the TV show: Veronica Mars. It opens with a quick recap of the show’s two-season run before launching forward to a time 10 years after the series ended (intelligently appropriate, Rob).
Veronica (Kristen Bell) is primed to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. For a reason I can’t explain, she is interviewing with a very prestigious law firm in New York City. It’s a firm which, I have to imagine, doesn’t hire people fresh out of school, especially those who haven’t even passed the bar yet.
In the midst of her interviews, she gets a call from an old high school love interest, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). He has been accused of murder (again).
Naturally, Veronica decides to pack up, say goodbye to her boyfriend, Stosh “piz” Piznarski (Chris Lowell), and head back to her sunny home town of Neptune, California.
Logan, an Air Force pilot, is relieved to see his friend. He starts bringing her up to speed, and shortly thereafter, the rest of the familiar faces join in: Gia Goodman (Krysten Ritter), Mac (Cindy Majorino), Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen), Weevil (Francis Copa), Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), Wallace Fennel (Percy Daggs III), and many more that will delight returning viewers.
As you might imagine, a complex series of issues comes to light, creating a symphony of drama, and, in typical Rob-Thomas fashion, some true laugh-out-loud moments.
While this is a great standalone film, it is peppered with many humorous references and nods to the movie’s predecessor. If you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed. There are many giggle-worthy moments: from the guy on the street singing, “we used to be friends,” to Dax Shepard’s appearance, to the mention of Veronica supposedly going to work for the FBI (referring to a potential third season).
My only real note of contention is, admittedly, somewhat petty. Kristen Bell was just recovering from having her child with husband Dax Shepard. The unfortunate (and expected) weight gain from that wonderful life event left her looking very unlike the character we all fell in love with, and distracted from the film. I’m curious to know why they couldn’t have waited a few more months to start filming, to allow Bell to get back into shape for the movie.
Aside from that one tiny note, the film was fantastic. The script was masterfully written, the acting superb, the humor gut-heaving, and the drama well done.
Cinematography for the film was indistinguishable from other high-quality films, and it’s easy to see that a lot of time, effort, and care went into it. Its creators ensured that the $5.7 million of pledges went into a work of art that does not disappoint.
As one of the 91,000+ backers, I am proud to be a part of this community effort. As a huge fan of Thomas, the series, and the mythos, I am ecstatic to report that this is an excellent film.
(Note: I am a rabid fan of the Veronica Mars TV series. Much of the review will be clearly colored by this.)
10 years after the debut of an exceptional TV show, and eight years after it was unceremoniously pulled from the airwaves, Rob Thomas put up a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie. It had a goal of $2 million, which would get the movie made — but it wouldn’t get us much.
As it turned out, 91,585 people liked his plan to create a film that would wrap up storylines from the series. They liked it enough that rather than pledging just $2 million, the backers generated over $5.7 million.
In the process of doing so, they achieved a number of amazing Kickstarter awards:
Fastest project to reach $1 million.
Fastest project to reach $2 million.
All-time highest-funded project in the FILM category.
Third-highest-funded project in Kickstarter history.
Most project backers of any project in Kickstarter history.
On to the movie itself.
The movies share its title with the TV show: Veronica Mars. It opens with a quick recap of the show’s two-season run before launching forward to a time 10 years after the series ended (intelligently appropriate, Rob).
Veronica (Kristen Bell) is primed to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. For a reason I can’t explain, she is interviewing with a very prestigious law firm in New York City. It’s a firm which, I have to imagine, doesn’t hire people fresh out of school, especially those who haven’t even passed the bar yet.
In the midst of her interviews, she gets a call from an old high school love interest, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). He has been accused of murder (again).
Naturally, Veronica decides to pack up, say goodbye to her boyfriend, Stosh “piz” Piznarski (Chris Lowell), and head back to her sunny home town of Neptune, California.
Logan, an Air Force pilot, is relieved to see his friend. He starts bringing her up to speed, and shortly thereafter, the rest of the familiar faces join in: Gia Goodman (Krysten Ritter), Mac (Cindy Majorino), Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen), Weevil (Francis Copa), Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), Wallace Fennel (Percy Daggs III), and many more that will delight returning viewers.
As you might imagine, a complex series of issues comes to light, creating a symphony of drama, and, in typical Rob-Thomas fashion, some true laugh-out-loud moments.
While this is a great standalone film, it is peppered with many humorous references and nods to the movie’s predecessor. If you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed. There are many giggle-worthy moments: from the guy on the street singing, “we used to be friends,” to Dax Shepard’s appearance, to the mention of Veronica supposedly going to work for the FBI (referring to a potential third season).
My only real note of contention is, admittedly, somewhat petty. Kristen Bell was just recovering from having her child with husband Dax Shepard. The unfortunate (and expected) weight gain from that wonderful life event left her looking very unlike the character we all fell in love with, and distracted from the film. I’m curious to know why they couldn’t have waited a few more months to start filming, to allow Bell to get back into shape for the movie.
Aside from that one tiny note, the film was fantastic. The script was masterfully written, the acting superb, the humor gut-heaving, and the drama well done.
Cinematography for the film was indistinguishable from other high-quality films, and it’s easy to see that a lot of time, effort, and care went into it. Its creators ensured that the $5.7 million of pledges went into a work of art that does not disappoint.
As one of the 91,000+ backers, I am proud to be a part of this community effort. As a huge fan of Thomas, the series, and the mythos, I am ecstatic to report that this is an excellent film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Oct 9, 2017
Worryingly Controversial
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Whistle In The Dark in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Jen Maddox is on holiday with her fifteen-year-old daughter, Lana, when Lana disappears. But, somehow, Lana is found four days later: confused and bloody, but in one piece. Jen and her husband, Hugh, are beyond relieved, but Jen cannot shake the fear plaguing her. Lana has struggled with depression these past few years. What happened over those four days? Why can't her daughter remember anything? Jen knows she should welcome Lana back with welcome arms, but she cannot rest until she knows what happened to her daughter.
This was a complicated read, which made me feel and think all sorts of feelings. I have to definitely point out that there are triggers for self-harm and suicide in this one. The book hit home for me, as I lost a dear cousin-who was more like a sister to me-to suicide. She was a little older than Lana when she died, but I saw a lot of similarity between the two, and I could understand some of Jen's frustration and sadness with her daughter because of it. Because, honestly, a lot of this book is just sad and depressing.
It's written in short snippets, not long chapters, each with a title, and they are all told from Jen's perspective. I would have liked to have heard from Lana sometimes. Because this is Emma Healey, many of these little pieces and insights are brilliant, truly. But, also, I won't lie, some of this book is a slog. It mirrors living with someone with depression--it's slow, painful, and tough. I wouldn't call this a fun read, even though I could definitely enjoy some of the breakthroughs and beautiful moments Lana and Jen did share.
While the premise of this book is finding out what happened to Lana, much of it is just Jen and Lana's daily life--trying to find themselves after Lana's disappearance. You see the guilt Jen feels about her daughter's mental illness and the complications of motherhood--how hard it can be. Jen's older daughter Meg and her husband, Hugh, are more supporting characters to the Jen and Lana show. There definitely are some humorous pieces among the sad parts--Jen and her husband struggling to raise a teen, Jen's interactions with her mom stand out. And Lana, as she comes across through her mom's eyes, is an interesting and dynamic character. Her grim sense of humor is enjoyable, too.
I found this novel to be very driven by emotions and to be a deep look at a family who is torn apart not only by Lana's disappearance, but by mental illness. I think, too, overall it does a very good job portraying what mental illness can do to a family. Even Lana's descriptions of what her depression feels like are quite well-done. So much of the book actually made me feel tense on Jen's behalf, and you just can't help but feel so sad and scared for both Jen and Lana. The little snippets of the book really do a good job of capturing moments--that is life, after all. A series of moments that add up.
I wish that Jen had been less obsessed with figuring out what had happened to Lana, but I think I can understand where it came from (her fear). For a little bit, I wasn't sure I could push through the book, but I was also motivated to figure out where Lana had been for those four days, and I was attached to Lana (and even Jen), I won't lie. The end of the book also redeemed it for me. There was something about it that made it all work.
This book isn't for everyone, and in some ways, I even have trouble recommending it for those who have struggled with mental illness, because it can be really triggering. Still, I think the author treated the topic very respectfully. I couldn't help but feel for Jen and I really found myself wanting to help Lana, to reach out to her. Healey really does know how to create nuanced characters. Still, if this is your first time reading her, I can't help but recommend the amazing Elizabeth Is Missing, which I just adore. Still, it has its lovely moments and is certainly well-written, if not a slow read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This was a complicated read, which made me feel and think all sorts of feelings. I have to definitely point out that there are triggers for self-harm and suicide in this one. The book hit home for me, as I lost a dear cousin-who was more like a sister to me-to suicide. She was a little older than Lana when she died, but I saw a lot of similarity between the two, and I could understand some of Jen's frustration and sadness with her daughter because of it. Because, honestly, a lot of this book is just sad and depressing.
It's written in short snippets, not long chapters, each with a title, and they are all told from Jen's perspective. I would have liked to have heard from Lana sometimes. Because this is Emma Healey, many of these little pieces and insights are brilliant, truly. But, also, I won't lie, some of this book is a slog. It mirrors living with someone with depression--it's slow, painful, and tough. I wouldn't call this a fun read, even though I could definitely enjoy some of the breakthroughs and beautiful moments Lana and Jen did share.
While the premise of this book is finding out what happened to Lana, much of it is just Jen and Lana's daily life--trying to find themselves after Lana's disappearance. You see the guilt Jen feels about her daughter's mental illness and the complications of motherhood--how hard it can be. Jen's older daughter Meg and her husband, Hugh, are more supporting characters to the Jen and Lana show. There definitely are some humorous pieces among the sad parts--Jen and her husband struggling to raise a teen, Jen's interactions with her mom stand out. And Lana, as she comes across through her mom's eyes, is an interesting and dynamic character. Her grim sense of humor is enjoyable, too.
I found this novel to be very driven by emotions and to be a deep look at a family who is torn apart not only by Lana's disappearance, but by mental illness. I think, too, overall it does a very good job portraying what mental illness can do to a family. Even Lana's descriptions of what her depression feels like are quite well-done. So much of the book actually made me feel tense on Jen's behalf, and you just can't help but feel so sad and scared for both Jen and Lana. The little snippets of the book really do a good job of capturing moments--that is life, after all. A series of moments that add up.
I wish that Jen had been less obsessed with figuring out what had happened to Lana, but I think I can understand where it came from (her fear). For a little bit, I wasn't sure I could push through the book, but I was also motivated to figure out where Lana had been for those four days, and I was attached to Lana (and even Jen), I won't lie. The end of the book also redeemed it for me. There was something about it that made it all work.
This book isn't for everyone, and in some ways, I even have trouble recommending it for those who have struggled with mental illness, because it can be really triggering. Still, I think the author treated the topic very respectfully. I couldn't help but feel for Jen and I really found myself wanting to help Lana, to reach out to her. Healey really does know how to create nuanced characters. Still, if this is your first time reading her, I can't help but recommend the amazing Elizabeth Is Missing, which I just adore. Still, it has its lovely moments and is certainly well-written, if not a slow read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Totally Onix-pected
Before we begin, I must apologise for the bad pun, but if any franchise deserves a pun for their first live-action movie adaptation, it’s Pokémon. Growing up in 90s Britain, Pokémon was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t turn a street corner without seeing Pikachu and his sidekick Ash (or should that be the other way around) emblazoned across every toy shop window or on every bus. It was a true phenomenon that took the world by storm like nothing else.
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/