Search
Search results
Kids Academy - preschool learning games for kids
Education and Games
7.0
Rate It
App
Prepare your kid for success in preschool and beyond with our complete learning course for AGES 2 to...
The Sister
6.0
Rate It
Book
‘I did something terrible Grace. I hope you can forgive me…’ Grace hasn't been the same...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Blackbird Season in Books
Dec 24, 2017
character-driven (2 more)
well-written
compelling
Complicated character-driven mystery
It's just another day in Mount Oanoke, Pennsylvania when the birds start to fall. Hundreds of dead starlings, dropping from the sky during a baseball game. It seems like the birds started it all, but really the secrets and lies began much earlier. Nate Winters, high school teacher and baseball coach, is beloved in the town. That is, until a reporter, in town to cover the birds, catches Nate hugging a student at a local motel. Suddenly, the birds are forgotten, and the story becomes much juicier: Nate; his student, Lucia; and their supposed affair. Lucia fuels the fire by affirming the affair and suddenly Nate and his wife, Alecia, are swept up in the story. The only who believes in Nate's innocence, even a sliver, is his friend and co-worker, Bridget. As Lucia's creative writing teacher, she has unique insight into the girl's mind. But when Lucia suddenly goes missing--with Nate as the prime suspect in her disappearance--not even Bridget may be able to save Nate. But is there more to Lucia's disappearance than an affair with her teacher?
Wow, I was really impressed by this novel. It's a complicated novel that is just as much a character-driven study as it is a mystery. It's incredibly well-written, and Moretti expertly embodies the voice of each of her characters, from beleaguered Alecia, who is worn down from mothering her autistic son, Gabe; to the cast of teenager characters; to Bridget, who lost her husband to cancer a year ago. It's so well-done that often with each chapter (which skip from various points of view -- Bridget, Kate, Lucia, Nate, etc.), I found my myself veering between whom I preferred or believed, constantly second-guessing my allegiances or what happened. This is very rare for me: typically I find my "person" in a novel and stick with them, no matter what.
But here, I was confused, wondering. Was Nate really a cad, who cheated on his wife every second he got, or was he the sweet, affable teacher and baseball coach that the whole town admired and adored? And Alecia--was she more than just a weary mom, broken down by years of staying at home with her autistic son, Gabe, unable to give to anyone beyond him? Did she push Nate away, into the arms of others? Or was the truth more complicated that all of this? I have to hand it to Moretti--she was excellent at creating confusion and doubt. In addition to different perspectives, the novel shifts in time (before the birds fell, after the birds fell, before Lucia disappeared, etc.). It's a little tough to keep track of, but it also keeps you on your toes and always wondering, as you piece various parts of the puzzle together.
For me--even more than the mystery of what exactly happened with Lucia--the strength of this novel was the writing and the characters. I felt for them, even when I was frustrated with them. Moretti captures the angst and meanness of high school extremely well, portraying the cliques of a small town quite superbly. (I was reminded of WHEN WE WERE WORTHY, which I just finished.) I loved the juxtaposition of this being a small town, so the idea is that everyone knows everyone and everything, and yet there are so many secrets, so much unknown. Being a witness to Alecia and Nate's marriage is amazing-- you see firsthand how the events affect them and how they've reached this point. It's an incredibly realistic portrayal of marriage and of motherhood.
As you probably tell, I just really liked this novel. It's very well-written, with quite compelling characters. I worked out some of the plot, but it didn't stop me from reading at all. I think some of the emphasis on character development slows the story at places, but not in any detrimental way. This one will make you think, as well as intrigue you with what happened to Lucia. Quite worth the read.
Wow, I was really impressed by this novel. It's a complicated novel that is just as much a character-driven study as it is a mystery. It's incredibly well-written, and Moretti expertly embodies the voice of each of her characters, from beleaguered Alecia, who is worn down from mothering her autistic son, Gabe; to the cast of teenager characters; to Bridget, who lost her husband to cancer a year ago. It's so well-done that often with each chapter (which skip from various points of view -- Bridget, Kate, Lucia, Nate, etc.), I found my myself veering between whom I preferred or believed, constantly second-guessing my allegiances or what happened. This is very rare for me: typically I find my "person" in a novel and stick with them, no matter what.
But here, I was confused, wondering. Was Nate really a cad, who cheated on his wife every second he got, or was he the sweet, affable teacher and baseball coach that the whole town admired and adored? And Alecia--was she more than just a weary mom, broken down by years of staying at home with her autistic son, Gabe, unable to give to anyone beyond him? Did she push Nate away, into the arms of others? Or was the truth more complicated that all of this? I have to hand it to Moretti--she was excellent at creating confusion and doubt. In addition to different perspectives, the novel shifts in time (before the birds fell, after the birds fell, before Lucia disappeared, etc.). It's a little tough to keep track of, but it also keeps you on your toes and always wondering, as you piece various parts of the puzzle together.
For me--even more than the mystery of what exactly happened with Lucia--the strength of this novel was the writing and the characters. I felt for them, even when I was frustrated with them. Moretti captures the angst and meanness of high school extremely well, portraying the cliques of a small town quite superbly. (I was reminded of WHEN WE WERE WORTHY, which I just finished.) I loved the juxtaposition of this being a small town, so the idea is that everyone knows everyone and everything, and yet there are so many secrets, so much unknown. Being a witness to Alecia and Nate's marriage is amazing-- you see firsthand how the events affect them and how they've reached this point. It's an incredibly realistic portrayal of marriage and of motherhood.
As you probably tell, I just really liked this novel. It's very well-written, with quite compelling characters. I worked out some of the plot, but it didn't stop me from reading at all. I think some of the emphasis on character development slows the story at places, but not in any detrimental way. This one will make you think, as well as intrigue you with what happened to Lucia. Quite worth the read.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated What You Want To See (Roxane Weary #2) in Books
May 10, 2018
The Roxane Weary mystery series is straight-up great!
Roxane Weary is hired by Arthur Ungless, owner of a print shop, to track his fiance, Marin, whom he believes is cheating on him. But her case devolves quickly, between a bounced check and Tom (Roxane's dad's former partner) and a rude cop named Sanko showing up on Roxane's doorstep with the news that Marin is dead. Not only that, they make it pretty clear that they want Roxane to stay out of it. But this is "pathologically nosy" Roxane we are talking about. Stay out of it she cannot. So Roxane continues to work Arthur's case--as the husband, he's the main suspect after all. Roxane is determined he's innocent: a perspective not shared by Tom and Sanko. As she digs deeper into Marin's life, she discovers that she led quite the double life, and Roxane finds herself lost in a world of antiques dealing, wealthy families, and a lot of danger.
I loved this book. I love the first person aspect. The Roxane Weary series is straight-up great mystery writing. No unreliable narrator, no chapters that alternate POV or time periods, no gimmicks--just an excellent protagonist and a strong plot. It makes you long for mysteries of old (think Kinsey Millhone). The ways I love Roxane cannot truly be enumerated--she's a female lead in a mystery series, for one. She's smart, witty, and sarcastic. She's bisexual, but this characteristic is just who she is, not her main defining element or the entire defining point of the novel. As a bisexual female, I cannot stress how amazing this is in literature. To have bisexual representation (and have that representation be intelligent, funny, and not portrayed as evil and deviant), well, it's wonderful. She has relationships of all kinds and works on figuring out herself, just like any other person. Gasp! Imagine that. I couldn't love Roxane more (or Kristen Lepionka for creating this character). Also, Roxane calls waffles "golden beauty" and well, what more do you need in your PI? She's the Leslie Knope of private investigators.
I was worried that the second Roxane Weary novel wouldn't stand up to the first, but I was anxious for no reason. The second book is just as wonderful and intricately crafted as the first, and we get to see Roxane both struggling and growing professionally and personally. The case is a great one--it had me frantically reading and totally shocked me at the end, which I love. So rarely can a detective novel keep me guessing to the anymore. Marin Strasser is quite the character, and her web of lies pulls in a whole host of supporting characters.
We also see Roxane navigating new territory with Tom, her former lover (and, as mentioned, her dad's ex-partner), and get appearances again from the appealing Weary brothers and Roxane's mom. Roxane is still working on her relationships--not just romantic ones, but life ones, and you'll be touched as she figures out trying to be a "surrogate aunt" to Shelby, who appeared in book one. Watching her let her guard down at times is enjoyable.
The case is still mainly the star, though, and it won't disappoint. It's complicated and intriguing and everything comes together in ways that will make you gasp and keep you riveted. I was definitely shocked several times while reading. Not to mention I love it when an author can write a character that I truly hate--you know they've done a good job when you can feel that anger viscerally through the pages!
Overall, I have nothing bad to say about this book. Maybe that it's over, and I have to wait now for a (hopeful!!) book three? I love Roxane. I feel kinship toward her for sure, this sarcastic, bisexual PI whose still navigating the world around her. The mystery in this book won't disappoint, nor will the characters. If you haven't read the first Roxane Weary novel, I do recommend reading it first (mostly because it's also so good), but this will stand on its own. Highly recommend!!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
I loved this book. I love the first person aspect. The Roxane Weary series is straight-up great mystery writing. No unreliable narrator, no chapters that alternate POV or time periods, no gimmicks--just an excellent protagonist and a strong plot. It makes you long for mysteries of old (think Kinsey Millhone). The ways I love Roxane cannot truly be enumerated--she's a female lead in a mystery series, for one. She's smart, witty, and sarcastic. She's bisexual, but this characteristic is just who she is, not her main defining element or the entire defining point of the novel. As a bisexual female, I cannot stress how amazing this is in literature. To have bisexual representation (and have that representation be intelligent, funny, and not portrayed as evil and deviant), well, it's wonderful. She has relationships of all kinds and works on figuring out herself, just like any other person. Gasp! Imagine that. I couldn't love Roxane more (or Kristen Lepionka for creating this character). Also, Roxane calls waffles "golden beauty" and well, what more do you need in your PI? She's the Leslie Knope of private investigators.
I was worried that the second Roxane Weary novel wouldn't stand up to the first, but I was anxious for no reason. The second book is just as wonderful and intricately crafted as the first, and we get to see Roxane both struggling and growing professionally and personally. The case is a great one--it had me frantically reading and totally shocked me at the end, which I love. So rarely can a detective novel keep me guessing to the anymore. Marin Strasser is quite the character, and her web of lies pulls in a whole host of supporting characters.
We also see Roxane navigating new territory with Tom, her former lover (and, as mentioned, her dad's ex-partner), and get appearances again from the appealing Weary brothers and Roxane's mom. Roxane is still working on her relationships--not just romantic ones, but life ones, and you'll be touched as she figures out trying to be a "surrogate aunt" to Shelby, who appeared in book one. Watching her let her guard down at times is enjoyable.
The case is still mainly the star, though, and it won't disappoint. It's complicated and intriguing and everything comes together in ways that will make you gasp and keep you riveted. I was definitely shocked several times while reading. Not to mention I love it when an author can write a character that I truly hate--you know they've done a good job when you can feel that anger viscerally through the pages!
Overall, I have nothing bad to say about this book. Maybe that it's over, and I have to wait now for a (hopeful!!) book three? I love Roxane. I feel kinship toward her for sure, this sarcastic, bisexual PI whose still navigating the world around her. The mystery in this book won't disappoint, nor will the characters. If you haven't read the first Roxane Weary novel, I do recommend reading it first (mostly because it's also so good), but this will stand on its own. Highly recommend!!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
Repo! The Genetic Opera is perhaps one of the most underrated films I’ve ever watched. The first time I watched it was at the behest of the elder of my younger brothers during my senior year of high school. At that time, I thought it was alright. The characters were hauntingly beautiful and the costumes delightfully dark, but beyond its appeal to my horror loving heart, I had little interest in re-watching it. The other day, I was browsing Shudder and came across it and decided to watch it for the sake of nostalgia. It was then that I picked up on the parody that my seventeen-year-old self missed entirely: for-profit healthcare.
Repo! takes place in 2056, where a planet-wide organ failure epidemic has led to drastic measures. In a time of need, a company by the name of GeneCo has come to the rescue. Offering payment plans to those that cannot afford their new organs, GeneCo saves the lives of those unfortunate souls. But what happens when they can’t meet their payments? Well, that’s what repo men are for, isn’t it?
So where does the parody come in? A similar system already exists in the way the American health care system is presently structured with its for-profit health insurance. Most insurance companies, like GeneCo, are not there for the benefit of their consumers, but for the filling of their pockets. As long as you can pay the premium (or the payment), your coverage remains intact and you’re able to get treatment and medication (or keep your organs in the world of Repo!). The moment you’re not able to do that, your coverage is often revoked (or your organs are repossessed). Of course, in the real world, this isn’t as brutal as it is in Repo! At least, not in most cases, but it can be just as scary. For myself, it’s often quite terrifying as I struggle to stay in remission from ulcerative pancolitis.
Moving on from the parody, there are other aspects of the movie that I feel are also accurate representations of today’s society – things that I feel Repo! was a bit ahead of its time on. The Largo family seems to represent the manner by which the wealthy feed upon the powerlessness of the poor. Also, am I the only one that, upon re-watching this film, can’t help but think of Trump when I’m looking at Rotti Largo? As a villain, Rotti is largely incompetent. He uses others to do what he can’t and often resorts to bullying to get what he wants, as can be seen in the blood contract with Blind Mag. Another example is how he manipulated Nathan and later Shiloh to break and control them, in hopes of controlling them. While it worked for the former of the two, Shiloh was not susceptible to his manipulation – yet another reference to something we’re seeing in today’s society in regards to Shiloh’s generation (that is present-day millennials) and the older generation, which is more mixed politically.
I think it’s also important that we take a moment to focus on Shiloh as a character. She is, perhaps, my least favorite character in this film. Then again, she was also in her rebellious teenage years and was, naturally, horrendously stereotyped. She loathed her father for keeping her bound to her room, even though she understood why and, even when she found out his sins and the lies he told her, she failed to turn against him – paying homage to the saying that “blood is thicker than water.” The end comics only state that she went into hiding, hinting that she was never to be heard from again – which is a shame. I’d like to think she’d become an activist, but… I guess that wasn’t her future.
One of my favorite things about this musical is the haunting and unearthly qualities that linger around Blind Mag and the Graverobber. This is a film I will watch again and again, even if others loathe it for being campy and over the top. In fact, I plan to show it to my Dad’s girlfriend’s kid.
Repo! takes place in 2056, where a planet-wide organ failure epidemic has led to drastic measures. In a time of need, a company by the name of GeneCo has come to the rescue. Offering payment plans to those that cannot afford their new organs, GeneCo saves the lives of those unfortunate souls. But what happens when they can’t meet their payments? Well, that’s what repo men are for, isn’t it?
So where does the parody come in? A similar system already exists in the way the American health care system is presently structured with its for-profit health insurance. Most insurance companies, like GeneCo, are not there for the benefit of their consumers, but for the filling of their pockets. As long as you can pay the premium (or the payment), your coverage remains intact and you’re able to get treatment and medication (or keep your organs in the world of Repo!). The moment you’re not able to do that, your coverage is often revoked (or your organs are repossessed). Of course, in the real world, this isn’t as brutal as it is in Repo! At least, not in most cases, but it can be just as scary. For myself, it’s often quite terrifying as I struggle to stay in remission from ulcerative pancolitis.
Moving on from the parody, there are other aspects of the movie that I feel are also accurate representations of today’s society – things that I feel Repo! was a bit ahead of its time on. The Largo family seems to represent the manner by which the wealthy feed upon the powerlessness of the poor. Also, am I the only one that, upon re-watching this film, can’t help but think of Trump when I’m looking at Rotti Largo? As a villain, Rotti is largely incompetent. He uses others to do what he can’t and often resorts to bullying to get what he wants, as can be seen in the blood contract with Blind Mag. Another example is how he manipulated Nathan and later Shiloh to break and control them, in hopes of controlling them. While it worked for the former of the two, Shiloh was not susceptible to his manipulation – yet another reference to something we’re seeing in today’s society in regards to Shiloh’s generation (that is present-day millennials) and the older generation, which is more mixed politically.
I think it’s also important that we take a moment to focus on Shiloh as a character. She is, perhaps, my least favorite character in this film. Then again, she was also in her rebellious teenage years and was, naturally, horrendously stereotyped. She loathed her father for keeping her bound to her room, even though she understood why and, even when she found out his sins and the lies he told her, she failed to turn against him – paying homage to the saying that “blood is thicker than water.” The end comics only state that she went into hiding, hinting that she was never to be heard from again – which is a shame. I’d like to think she’d become an activist, but… I guess that wasn’t her future.
One of my favorite things about this musical is the haunting and unearthly qualities that linger around Blind Mag and the Graverobber. This is a film I will watch again and again, even if others loathe it for being campy and over the top. In fact, I plan to show it to my Dad’s girlfriend’s kid.
Mothergamer (1604 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Flight Attendant in Books
Feb 26, 2018
Compulsively readable (1 more)
Fascinating, befuddling story
Unpredictable book that sucks you in from the start
Cassandra Bowen is a flight attendant with a history of bad decisions--most of them tied to her predilection to heavy drinking. Mostly her drinking leads to sexual encounters with dubious men, topless dancing, and a few bouts of blackouts. But when Cassie's work takes her to Dubai, she spends the night with a gentleman she met on the plane, drinking heavily with him all evening; in the morning she wakes up next to him in bed and finds him dead, covered in blood. Alone and female in Dubai, Cassie sneaks out of the hotel room and returns home on the plane with her fellow flight attendants, setting off a trail of lies that will haunt her. And in the back of her mind, she fears the worst: could she have killed Alex while drunk? And what will happen when the authorities discover her deception?
This novel starts off with a bang, with Cassie waking up next to a dead man. Once Cassie gets back to the States, I found myself fascinated what could possibly happen for the other 80% of the book. (My mistake, a lot can happen.) The entire novel kept me wondering what on earth would come next. This is a crazy, unpredictable book that sucks you in and never lets you go. I was constantly wondering who the various characters were--who really was Alex, for instance? Is there more to Cassie than we are being told? I was honestly confused for a good portion of the book, which doesn't happen often when I read.
It was really fun and befuddling to piece things together in this one. The book was rather stressful, trying to decipher all the various characters and to deal with Cassie's high-risk behavior. As the end nears, I was actually shocked by a couple of twists, which I really appreciated. It's rare that a thriller truly shocks me anymore. I was truly impressed with this one. The ending was a little odd, but as I pondered it more, I think I'm good with it.
As for Cassie, she was a hard character to like, and there's certainly been no shortage of unreliable drunken female narrators in contemporary fiction as of late. Still, you can't help but get caught up in her story. It's compulsively readable. There are also lots of good flight attendant stories; Chris Bohjalian always well researches his books.
Cassie's chapters also alternate with a woman named Elena, which is an effective storytelling device, and only ratchets up the suspense. Her tale is just as befuddling as Cassie's--perhaps even more so--and just added to my desire to turn the pages and find out what on earth was going on and how these people were all connected. Bohjalian really weaved a fascinating story here, and I love how all of his books are so different. Whereas some can be emotional, this one was truly a thriller, and focused so much on the story and mystery. It wasn't exactly what I was expecting, but it was great.
I also found some amusing little personal tidbits in the book: references to Charlottesville (the second in a row in the novels I read--it's my hometown) and Cassie's Kentucky references, including her attendance at the University of Kentucky. We are, in fact, a UK and UVA household--my five-year-old twins are very divided between the two. It's funny how little things stick with you when you read a novel.
Overall, this was a great read. Completely befuddling, but incredibly suspenseful and just sort of fun. Not at all what I expected from Bohjalian, but a fascinating, enjoyable thriller. I was completely lost in Cassie and Elena's bizarre world for a few days--the sign of a great book. 4 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review; more at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
This novel starts off with a bang, with Cassie waking up next to a dead man. Once Cassie gets back to the States, I found myself fascinated what could possibly happen for the other 80% of the book. (My mistake, a lot can happen.) The entire novel kept me wondering what on earth would come next. This is a crazy, unpredictable book that sucks you in and never lets you go. I was constantly wondering who the various characters were--who really was Alex, for instance? Is there more to Cassie than we are being told? I was honestly confused for a good portion of the book, which doesn't happen often when I read.
It was really fun and befuddling to piece things together in this one. The book was rather stressful, trying to decipher all the various characters and to deal with Cassie's high-risk behavior. As the end nears, I was actually shocked by a couple of twists, which I really appreciated. It's rare that a thriller truly shocks me anymore. I was truly impressed with this one. The ending was a little odd, but as I pondered it more, I think I'm good with it.
As for Cassie, she was a hard character to like, and there's certainly been no shortage of unreliable drunken female narrators in contemporary fiction as of late. Still, you can't help but get caught up in her story. It's compulsively readable. There are also lots of good flight attendant stories; Chris Bohjalian always well researches his books.
Cassie's chapters also alternate with a woman named Elena, which is an effective storytelling device, and only ratchets up the suspense. Her tale is just as befuddling as Cassie's--perhaps even more so--and just added to my desire to turn the pages and find out what on earth was going on and how these people were all connected. Bohjalian really weaved a fascinating story here, and I love how all of his books are so different. Whereas some can be emotional, this one was truly a thriller, and focused so much on the story and mystery. It wasn't exactly what I was expecting, but it was great.
I also found some amusing little personal tidbits in the book: references to Charlottesville (the second in a row in the novels I read--it's my hometown) and Cassie's Kentucky references, including her attendance at the University of Kentucky. We are, in fact, a UK and UVA household--my five-year-old twins are very divided between the two. It's funny how little things stick with you when you read a novel.
Overall, this was a great read. Completely befuddling, but incredibly suspenseful and just sort of fun. Not at all what I expected from Bohjalian, but a fascinating, enjoyable thriller. I was completely lost in Cassie and Elena's bizarre world for a few days--the sign of a great book. 4 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review; more at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I saw one trailer for this and at that point I instantly assumed that it wouldn't show at my local Cineworld, but it did, with a surprising amount of showings. The gentleman and I who attended this particular screening really did not look like your typical black metal fans, but then it's always the quiet ones...
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.