Search
Search results
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Bird Box in Books
May 16, 2018
If you're looking for something that is fast-paced and just might give you an anxiety attack, Josh Malerman's debut novel Bird Box may be exactly what you need. Set in the very near future, Bird Box is a book that simultaneously takes place during and after the apocalypse. Human beings find their minds under assault by an unseen force, one that drives them toward homicidal and suicidal tendencies. The only way to remain safe is to never, ever open your eyes.
Imagine with me what living in a world, robbed suddenly of sight, might be like. We rely heavily on our senses and, as an avid reader, I highly value my ability to be able to see the written word. I can't even begin to fathom what it would be like to find myself forced into an eternally dark void, and never have I thought of a scenario in which I would choose to be blind.
In Bird Box, Malorie and her children aren't given that option. Stranded in a home that is not her own, and faced with dwindling supplies and a lack of social interaction with anyone but her two children, Malorie must embark on a dangerous mission to find a new, safer haven for her small family: only their destination isn't very close to them, and they are not alone. There's a fourth party traveling with them and they are helpless to identify the newcomer.
The entire story does not follow that journey alone, though. In fact, it simultaneously takes place prior to Malorie's endeavor, introducing us to an entire cast of characters ranging from lovable to untrustworthy; from the purely innocent to those whose madness goes beyond all help. Though I'm not a huge fan of the constant back and forth chronology (in fact, I find it to be extremely distracting), the manner in which Malerman reveals bits and pieces of his story is crucial to progression: it gives readers the opportunity to develop their own feelings for Malorie and how she handles her problems. I also found that the odd way in which he split the story kept me reading, if only because more often that not, I found myself wondering how or why something was the way it was presently if, at the beginning of the end, everything seemed to be headed in a totally different direction.
Like most stories that take place after the world as we know it has met its doom, whether by nuclear fallout, bio-warfare, or the collapse of government, Bird Box brings out the best, and more readily, the worst in people. They become desperate or panicked, sometimes to the point that their actions defy all logic: such as the voluntary or involuntary blinding of oneself to avoid madness. Perhaps I so easily love post-apocalyptic books for that reason alone. They have a habit of reminding us exactly how pathetic and disgusting our own race can be; how often we are willing to put ourselves first, despite the suffering of others, should the situation call for it.
Imagine with me what living in a world, robbed suddenly of sight, might be like. We rely heavily on our senses and, as an avid reader, I highly value my ability to be able to see the written word. I can't even begin to fathom what it would be like to find myself forced into an eternally dark void, and never have I thought of a scenario in which I would choose to be blind.
In Bird Box, Malorie and her children aren't given that option. Stranded in a home that is not her own, and faced with dwindling supplies and a lack of social interaction with anyone but her two children, Malorie must embark on a dangerous mission to find a new, safer haven for her small family: only their destination isn't very close to them, and they are not alone. There's a fourth party traveling with them and they are helpless to identify the newcomer.
The entire story does not follow that journey alone, though. In fact, it simultaneously takes place prior to Malorie's endeavor, introducing us to an entire cast of characters ranging from lovable to untrustworthy; from the purely innocent to those whose madness goes beyond all help. Though I'm not a huge fan of the constant back and forth chronology (in fact, I find it to be extremely distracting), the manner in which Malerman reveals bits and pieces of his story is crucial to progression: it gives readers the opportunity to develop their own feelings for Malorie and how she handles her problems. I also found that the odd way in which he split the story kept me reading, if only because more often that not, I found myself wondering how or why something was the way it was presently if, at the beginning of the end, everything seemed to be headed in a totally different direction.
Like most stories that take place after the world as we know it has met its doom, whether by nuclear fallout, bio-warfare, or the collapse of government, Bird Box brings out the best, and more readily, the worst in people. They become desperate or panicked, sometimes to the point that their actions defy all logic: such as the voluntary or involuntary blinding of oneself to avoid madness. Perhaps I so easily love post-apocalyptic books for that reason alone. They have a habit of reminding us exactly how pathetic and disgusting our own race can be; how often we are willing to put ourselves first, despite the suffering of others, should the situation call for it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Firewall (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following a three year absence from the big screen, box office megastar Harrison Ford returns in Firewall as Ford Jack Stanfield, a devoted family man who works designing and maintaining networks and security systems for a small chain of banks. Jack who along with his wife Beth (Virginia Madsen), and their two children live a comfortable life in a Seattle suburb in a luxurious home that Beth designed.
The twenty-four banks owned by Jack’s firm are in the process of being acquired by a large chain and the resulting windfall from this venture is making people on both sides tense and excited as the merger draws closure. Jack has some reservations about the new firm’s lack of customer service and acceptance of security losses which he believes will be passed on to their customers. This stance draws tension from a representative of the new partner (Robert Patrick), and has caused Jack to go to a meeting with a potential client who is looking to engage Jack’s services.
What begins as a promising business venture soon takes a dangerous turn as Jack is hijacked and learns that he and his family are being held hostage by a gang of thugs lead by the charismatic and dangerous Bill Cox (Paul Bettany), who wires Jack for sight and sound so they can monitor his every move at work. Jack is told that should he deviate from instructions or attempt to alert others to his situation, his family will be killed for his defiance.
In time, Jack is instructed to withdraw $10,000 from several of the banks top accounts and erase any history of the transactions or the resulting deposits in offshore accounts. The plan hits an unexpected snag when as a result of the pending merger, the hardware needed for Jack to input his requests has been moved to a remote locale out of state.
Undaunted Bill ups the stakes and forces Jack to find a way to get the money to him before time is up and his family is killed. Things go from bad to worse when complications arise forcing Jack to take desperate measures that soon has him fighting both his captors, his co-workers, and the law as he attempts to free his family and save them from their captors.
Firewall like last years Hostage suffers from a severe lack of urgency. We are told and shown just how evil the captors are yet, when people are told not do certain things and they continue to do so without repercussions, one would have to think that they would eventually cut their losses and start killing people off.
Ford does his best to make the by-the-numbers story work, but there are just not enough thrills and tension in the film to make it gripping. There is a heavy sense of “been there, seen that” to almost every portion of the film. What could have been a tight thriller is lost in clichés and gaps in logic that undermine the supposed seriousness of the situation.
The twenty-four banks owned by Jack’s firm are in the process of being acquired by a large chain and the resulting windfall from this venture is making people on both sides tense and excited as the merger draws closure. Jack has some reservations about the new firm’s lack of customer service and acceptance of security losses which he believes will be passed on to their customers. This stance draws tension from a representative of the new partner (Robert Patrick), and has caused Jack to go to a meeting with a potential client who is looking to engage Jack’s services.
What begins as a promising business venture soon takes a dangerous turn as Jack is hijacked and learns that he and his family are being held hostage by a gang of thugs lead by the charismatic and dangerous Bill Cox (Paul Bettany), who wires Jack for sight and sound so they can monitor his every move at work. Jack is told that should he deviate from instructions or attempt to alert others to his situation, his family will be killed for his defiance.
In time, Jack is instructed to withdraw $10,000 from several of the banks top accounts and erase any history of the transactions or the resulting deposits in offshore accounts. The plan hits an unexpected snag when as a result of the pending merger, the hardware needed for Jack to input his requests has been moved to a remote locale out of state.
Undaunted Bill ups the stakes and forces Jack to find a way to get the money to him before time is up and his family is killed. Things go from bad to worse when complications arise forcing Jack to take desperate measures that soon has him fighting both his captors, his co-workers, and the law as he attempts to free his family and save them from their captors.
Firewall like last years Hostage suffers from a severe lack of urgency. We are told and shown just how evil the captors are yet, when people are told not do certain things and they continue to do so without repercussions, one would have to think that they would eventually cut their losses and start killing people off.
Ford does his best to make the by-the-numbers story work, but there are just not enough thrills and tension in the film to make it gripping. There is a heavy sense of “been there, seen that” to almost every portion of the film. What could have been a tight thriller is lost in clichés and gaps in logic that undermine the supposed seriousness of the situation.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated On the Basis of Sex (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
What a great way to start this film. Ginsburg walking through the crowd of men all set to the Harvard fight song "Ten Thousand Men Of Harvard", it sums up the message of the film so well and makes you realise just how much of a challenge she was up against.
With such a wide career to work with I was pleased to see that for the most part the film concentrated on that main case. The preamble up to that point was interesting and seemed to be well chosen, I did initially find it slightly confusing initially as I think I blinked slightly too long and missed the point where it showed the year change.
I liked the changing dynamic of Ruth and Martin, it showed an amazingly supportive relationship, when he couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel she was there for him and when she thought she was failing he was her rock. The emotion between the two showed throughout and was a welcome addition to the film and there's one moment that's just so amazing where Ruth looks up at Martin and I wondered for one second if Jones and Hammer were actually in love.
Hearing her listing the reasons she'd been rejected from jobs was mind-boggling and had it been me I'd definitely have ended up in jail after bitchslapping at least one of the interviewers. I think the film handles the sexism quite well, although I'm sure it wasn't quite as "easy" as it appeared. The "unintentional" sexism in the characters was interesting to see and added an extra layer into the story.
I could probably wade around in this film for ages nit-picking about things, it's a perfectly adequate production with nothing massively wrong with it... apart from Martin wearing a short sleeve shirt with his suit, that's still annoying me along with the question: why is she referred to as Ruth Ginsburg all the way through apart from once? I feel like we were being kept out of the loop on some in-joke/secret. I came out feeling let down though, partly because I don't think it was quite what I was expecting and partly because of the ending.
You know you're going to get a showstopper of a speech from Ginsburg but it actually was the showstopper from which we switch to a worded cut screen and voiceovers. This was completely at odds with the rest of the film and it robs us of the gratification of seeing the characters get their win. It almost felt like it was aware that it needed to do something to link it to the modern side of the story but didn't know how.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, but I wouldn't worry about seeing it at the cinema. I'm going to seek out the RBG documentary next and it might be something to watch that covers a wider history.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of those RBG logic and reasoning skills would be absolutely amazing.
With such a wide career to work with I was pleased to see that for the most part the film concentrated on that main case. The preamble up to that point was interesting and seemed to be well chosen, I did initially find it slightly confusing initially as I think I blinked slightly too long and missed the point where it showed the year change.
I liked the changing dynamic of Ruth and Martin, it showed an amazingly supportive relationship, when he couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel she was there for him and when she thought she was failing he was her rock. The emotion between the two showed throughout and was a welcome addition to the film and there's one moment that's just so amazing where Ruth looks up at Martin and I wondered for one second if Jones and Hammer were actually in love.
Hearing her listing the reasons she'd been rejected from jobs was mind-boggling and had it been me I'd definitely have ended up in jail after bitchslapping at least one of the interviewers. I think the film handles the sexism quite well, although I'm sure it wasn't quite as "easy" as it appeared. The "unintentional" sexism in the characters was interesting to see and added an extra layer into the story.
I could probably wade around in this film for ages nit-picking about things, it's a perfectly adequate production with nothing massively wrong with it... apart from Martin wearing a short sleeve shirt with his suit, that's still annoying me along with the question: why is she referred to as Ruth Ginsburg all the way through apart from once? I feel like we were being kept out of the loop on some in-joke/secret. I came out feeling let down though, partly because I don't think it was quite what I was expecting and partly because of the ending.
You know you're going to get a showstopper of a speech from Ginsburg but it actually was the showstopper from which we switch to a worded cut screen and voiceovers. This was completely at odds with the rest of the film and it robs us of the gratification of seeing the characters get their win. It almost felt like it was aware that it needed to do something to link it to the modern side of the story but didn't know how.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, but I wouldn't worry about seeing it at the cinema. I'm going to seek out the RBG documentary next and it might be something to watch that covers a wider history.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of those RBG logic and reasoning skills would be absolutely amazing.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated In The Shadow of Blackbirds in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I had this random tendency to not write a review, at all, for Cat Winters' <i>In the Shadow of Blackbirds</i>, to which the copy at the library had an extremely sucky synopsis (though the design IS pretty):
In a city filled with the dead and dying,
while a nightmarish war rages halfway across the world,
the grieving look for answers in photographs and séances.
It's 1918. San Diego.
And a girl who doesn't believe in spirits
steps off the train and into a new life...
Apparently the one sentence synopsis provided by the publisher (yes, I read those) is a lot more helpful than this inside jacket cover synopsis, which gives a the book a mysterious aura that separates it from the other 2015-2016 Gateway Award Nominees.
The book, albeit a fantastically creepy concept, apparently goes from one end of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum by the end of the book.
The so-called beginning of the spectrum I'm speaking of is the absolute, complete paranoia of the time period. Literally all of the characters depicted throughout the book was highly addicted to onions, spirit photography, or shunning the Germans. Of course, the more historical fiction and actual historical texts I read of World War I, I sometimes find it highly hilarious mainly due to the simple fact that Americans actually came from Europe and the majority of them have German blood (okay, a lot of ya'll have European blood). Funny how that actually works.
The only characters that I actually liked was Mary Shelley Black (thankfully the main character) and Stephen Embers (or rather, Live Stephen and not Dead Stephen, who actually spent a good few times squishing Mary Shelley). Both Mary Shelley and Stephen were more "adventurous" (logic and science) and tended to stray from the rest of the pack. On the unfortunate side... dear old Stephen Embers is apparently dead, which eventually results in the book being one of your typical ghost stories/shows where the dead have unfinished business.
However, in Stephen's case, all Mary Shelley seems to get from him is something about blackbirds - blackbirds attacking him.
The other end of the spectrum, as the book continues and Mary Shelley gets closer to finding out Stephen's "unfinished" business, is apparently the book going from the main character being the most logical and unparanoid one to being one of the paranoid ones. She goes from being one of the logical ones who reasons and questions everything to someone who "freaked" out over a cough or "drowning" herself in onions. Onions are apparently the garlic of the book while the vampire is the influenza.
Simply put, <i>In the Shadow of Blackbirds</i> started to become a little bit too "insane" for my taste and for me to handle at certain points until the very end. Cat Winters' debut novel was a chilling read that left me walking away feeling mainly satisfied with how Stephen and Mary Shelley eventually come to terms with their relationship.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-in-the-shadow-of-blackbirds-by-cat-winters/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
In a city filled with the dead and dying,
while a nightmarish war rages halfway across the world,
the grieving look for answers in photographs and séances.
It's 1918. San Diego.
And a girl who doesn't believe in spirits
steps off the train and into a new life...
Apparently the one sentence synopsis provided by the publisher (yes, I read those) is a lot more helpful than this inside jacket cover synopsis, which gives a the book a mysterious aura that separates it from the other 2015-2016 Gateway Award Nominees.
The book, albeit a fantastically creepy concept, apparently goes from one end of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum by the end of the book.
The so-called beginning of the spectrum I'm speaking of is the absolute, complete paranoia of the time period. Literally all of the characters depicted throughout the book was highly addicted to onions, spirit photography, or shunning the Germans. Of course, the more historical fiction and actual historical texts I read of World War I, I sometimes find it highly hilarious mainly due to the simple fact that Americans actually came from Europe and the majority of them have German blood (okay, a lot of ya'll have European blood). Funny how that actually works.
The only characters that I actually liked was Mary Shelley Black (thankfully the main character) and Stephen Embers (or rather, Live Stephen and not Dead Stephen, who actually spent a good few times squishing Mary Shelley). Both Mary Shelley and Stephen were more "adventurous" (logic and science) and tended to stray from the rest of the pack. On the unfortunate side... dear old Stephen Embers is apparently dead, which eventually results in the book being one of your typical ghost stories/shows where the dead have unfinished business.
However, in Stephen's case, all Mary Shelley seems to get from him is something about blackbirds - blackbirds attacking him.
The other end of the spectrum, as the book continues and Mary Shelley gets closer to finding out Stephen's "unfinished" business, is apparently the book going from the main character being the most logical and unparanoid one to being one of the paranoid ones. She goes from being one of the logical ones who reasons and questions everything to someone who "freaked" out over a cough or "drowning" herself in onions. Onions are apparently the garlic of the book while the vampire is the influenza.
Simply put, <i>In the Shadow of Blackbirds</i> started to become a little bit too "insane" for my taste and for me to handle at certain points until the very end. Cat Winters' debut novel was a chilling read that left me walking away feeling mainly satisfied with how Stephen and Mary Shelley eventually come to terms with their relationship.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-in-the-shadow-of-blackbirds-by-cat-winters/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated This Means War (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It’s been said that all’s fair in love and war and never was the case more evident than in the tale of FDR and Tuck, two best friends who also happen to be partners and top agents at the CIA. After a covert operation doesn’t go as planned the duo find themselves riding their desks in the Los Angeles agency office much to their chagrin.
FDR (Chris Pine) is very confident ladies’ man while Tuck (Tom Hardy) is a divorced father of a little boy looking for “the one”. The more reserved Tuck decides to take his chances with online dating while FDR is content to cruise the local video store searching for his latest conquest. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), an attractive, independent woman who appears to have everything except a love life.
When Lauren encounters her former fiancé engaged to another woman, she vents her frustration to her best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) who decides to take matters into her own hands and, unbeknownst to Lauren, produces an online dating profile for Lauren which matches her with Tuck. The first meeting between the two goes very well and they decide to take things slowly and see where this promising start leads. Unfortunately as Trish is heading home she stops in the same video store were FDR is on the prowl and the two mix like oil and water. Undeterred, FDR decides to pursue Lauren.
Eventually Tuck and FDR realize that they’re seeing the same woman and, not wanting to put their friendship in jeopardy, agree that they will continue to see her and let Lauren decide whom she prefers. The fact that neither men in this love triangle acknowledges that they know each other leads to some interesting complications, and naturally jealousies arise between the two friends.
With the full resources of the CIA at their disposal, Tuck and FDR, who’ve both become captivated with Lauren, soon take advantage of their job not only to spy on each other’s dates with Lauren but also to do their best to undermine the other and gain valuable information to help them appear more desirable to Lauren. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, an international criminal named Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is searching for the two agents to seek revenge. Constantly battling one another as well as the impending threat of Heinrich, FDR and Tuck embark on a hysterical and action-packed adventure that is one of the most enjoyable romantic comedies in recent memory.
Sure the film does take a few leaps in logic, such as the CIA turning a blind eye to their use of so many high-level resources in the world of dating but anyone seeing this type of film obviously isn’t expecting realism.
Directed by McG the film mixes action and comedy with a touch of romance and creates an entertaining formula. The three leads work exceptionally well with one another and Hardy and Pine are clearly stars on the rise. Handler does some great supporting work in the film and gets more than her share of laughs. This is definitely one you will not want to miss.
FDR (Chris Pine) is very confident ladies’ man while Tuck (Tom Hardy) is a divorced father of a little boy looking for “the one”. The more reserved Tuck decides to take his chances with online dating while FDR is content to cruise the local video store searching for his latest conquest. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), an attractive, independent woman who appears to have everything except a love life.
When Lauren encounters her former fiancé engaged to another woman, she vents her frustration to her best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) who decides to take matters into her own hands and, unbeknownst to Lauren, produces an online dating profile for Lauren which matches her with Tuck. The first meeting between the two goes very well and they decide to take things slowly and see where this promising start leads. Unfortunately as Trish is heading home she stops in the same video store were FDR is on the prowl and the two mix like oil and water. Undeterred, FDR decides to pursue Lauren.
Eventually Tuck and FDR realize that they’re seeing the same woman and, not wanting to put their friendship in jeopardy, agree that they will continue to see her and let Lauren decide whom she prefers. The fact that neither men in this love triangle acknowledges that they know each other leads to some interesting complications, and naturally jealousies arise between the two friends.
With the full resources of the CIA at their disposal, Tuck and FDR, who’ve both become captivated with Lauren, soon take advantage of their job not only to spy on each other’s dates with Lauren but also to do their best to undermine the other and gain valuable information to help them appear more desirable to Lauren. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, an international criminal named Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is searching for the two agents to seek revenge. Constantly battling one another as well as the impending threat of Heinrich, FDR and Tuck embark on a hysterical and action-packed adventure that is one of the most enjoyable romantic comedies in recent memory.
Sure the film does take a few leaps in logic, such as the CIA turning a blind eye to their use of so many high-level resources in the world of dating but anyone seeing this type of film obviously isn’t expecting realism.
Directed by McG the film mixes action and comedy with a touch of romance and creates an entertaining formula. The three leads work exceptionally well with one another and Hardy and Pine are clearly stars on the rise. Handler does some great supporting work in the film and gets more than her share of laughs. This is definitely one you will not want to miss.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Freaky (2021) in Movies
Jul 3, 2021
No, not like the Disney version
Some B-movies really pack a much bigger punch than you would expect. "Nobody" is a perfect recent example. But movie karma needs to be balanced with something. Ladies and gentlemen - "Freaky"!
Positives:
- If you are into your "teen slasher" movies, then this is more of the same and features some innovative ways to dispatch the victims. One is certainly no way to treat a fine wine!
- Vince Vaughn has fun mincing around as his alter-ego and Kathryn Newton (soon to be in the next "Ant-Man" movie) is personable enough as the cutie-cum-serial-killer.
- It's always good to see Ferris-actor Alan Ruck on the big screen. Here, he actually plays two parts in the film. (This joke (C) One Mann's Movies.)
Negatives:
- It's flagged as "comedy/horror" but failed to meet my personal 6-laugh test. It's just not funny enough to pass muster unless, that is, you view crude dialogue as "funny". And the dialogue does get ickily crude at some points. For example, when evil-Millie ends up alone with three jocks, there's a line of misogynist dialogue (that I won't repeat) but which sets the level.
- As a Blumhouse production, the horror is ultra-gory which will put off many viewers lacking a strong stomach. But because of the associated black comedy, the horror isn't remotely tense or scary. This might be why the film only got a UK-15 certificate. But my personal view is that, with the violence and the offensive dialogue, the BBFC under called this one, and it should have been an 18.
- There's a lot of schmaltz layered on regarding the relationship between Millie and her mum (Katie Finneran, channelling a Laura Dern look). A store cubicle exchange between Finneran and Vaughn is particularly stomach-churning.
- The movie leaves logic at the door many times. A formulaic post-finale ending assumes a superhero ability to shrug off bullets.
Summary Thoughts on "Freaky": The 'body-swap idea has gone through dozens of movie versions, with Disney's "Freaky Friday" the most well known: it's actually had two outings, once in 1976 with a young Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris and again in 2003 with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie-Lee Curtis. (The latter is a firm Mann-family favourite).
This new version tries a serial-killer twist on the story, which is a good idea. But the movie fails to execute well on the concept. The director is Christopher Landon who did the "Happy Death Day" movies. This is in a similar vein. So teens who enjoyed those flicks might get a fun Saturday night out with this. But, for me, this fell between the stools of comedy and horror and is instantly forgettable.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/03/freaky-no-its-not-remotely-like-the-disney-version/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies). Thanks.)
Positives:
- If you are into your "teen slasher" movies, then this is more of the same and features some innovative ways to dispatch the victims. One is certainly no way to treat a fine wine!
- Vince Vaughn has fun mincing around as his alter-ego and Kathryn Newton (soon to be in the next "Ant-Man" movie) is personable enough as the cutie-cum-serial-killer.
- It's always good to see Ferris-actor Alan Ruck on the big screen. Here, he actually plays two parts in the film. (This joke (C) One Mann's Movies.)
Negatives:
- It's flagged as "comedy/horror" but failed to meet my personal 6-laugh test. It's just not funny enough to pass muster unless, that is, you view crude dialogue as "funny". And the dialogue does get ickily crude at some points. For example, when evil-Millie ends up alone with three jocks, there's a line of misogynist dialogue (that I won't repeat) but which sets the level.
- As a Blumhouse production, the horror is ultra-gory which will put off many viewers lacking a strong stomach. But because of the associated black comedy, the horror isn't remotely tense or scary. This might be why the film only got a UK-15 certificate. But my personal view is that, with the violence and the offensive dialogue, the BBFC under called this one, and it should have been an 18.
- There's a lot of schmaltz layered on regarding the relationship between Millie and her mum (Katie Finneran, channelling a Laura Dern look). A store cubicle exchange between Finneran and Vaughn is particularly stomach-churning.
- The movie leaves logic at the door many times. A formulaic post-finale ending assumes a superhero ability to shrug off bullets.
Summary Thoughts on "Freaky": The 'body-swap idea has gone through dozens of movie versions, with Disney's "Freaky Friday" the most well known: it's actually had two outings, once in 1976 with a young Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris and again in 2003 with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie-Lee Curtis. (The latter is a firm Mann-family favourite).
This new version tries a serial-killer twist on the story, which is a good idea. But the movie fails to execute well on the concept. The director is Christopher Landon who did the "Happy Death Day" movies. This is in a similar vein. So teens who enjoyed those flicks might get a fun Saturday night out with this. But, for me, this fell between the stools of comedy and horror and is instantly forgettable.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/03/freaky-no-its-not-remotely-like-the-disney-version/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies). Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Santa Jaws (2018) in Movies
Aug 7, 2020
It really shouldn't have been such a challenge for me to see this film. Nearly two years after its release I finally managed to see it... and spoiler alert for my conclusion... it was fintastic.
Cody makes a Christmas wish to be alone, little does he know that his Christmas present is going to make that wish come true in a very festive and gruesome way.
I very quickly want to get a negative out of the way first. There is very noticeable music playing throughout the film. Now, I'm one of those terrible people that doesn't notice music unless it's brilliantly placed or horrendous, and while this music isn't horrendous it does suffer from being way too familiar. You've got Christmas tunes which work fine but the film has the Home Alone theme/feel about it and I think most people can identify those songs when they pop up anywhere.
This film has a little Inception moment at the beginning and we get a representation of the comic the boys are writing. I'm honestly a little disappointed that we didn't get to see that as a whole film of its own when it brings us the amazing line "See you in jingle hell!" spoken with such heart.
Once we get down to our regular programming it's very easy to sink into the ideas at work, there's nothing over complicated and the characters are easy to place. You get the chance to make predictors/wishes early on for who you want to die, and I was not disappointed... at the same time though I was super angry about Santa Jaws' first kill, BAD SHARK!
The acting isn't bad overall, there are some bits that come across a little cheesy and forced when we keep getting Home Alone-esque pieces thrown in, but at the same time... it's a movie about a Christmas themed shark sooooooo.
I'm not entirely sure that the comic book shop was a necessary inclusion on the whole but I can't argue with the choices the owner made... kudos... I wouldn't have wanted those missed out of the final piece.
Shark movie logic abounds and characters make tremendous leaps in deductions that further the plot. My favourite being about the Christmassy nature of the shark. I don't know how the shark's powers and weaknesses came about it the storyline but, standing ovation to you, I loved it.
I ended up getting an imported shark DVD box set so I could see this, it was definitely worth the effort. (Not the stress of trying to play it, but that's another story.) I can only hope this one hits our screens on SyFy or the Horror Channel, I'm honestly surprised it hasn't already. Santa Jaws is an amusing romp in the creature feature genre, it's a great twist on the classics (shark or Christmas film, take your pick) and for the brave I'm sure you could make a drinking game out of Christmas puns and Home Alone references... though maybe not with anything too strong, you might not make it to the end.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/santa-jaws-movie-review.html
Cody makes a Christmas wish to be alone, little does he know that his Christmas present is going to make that wish come true in a very festive and gruesome way.
I very quickly want to get a negative out of the way first. There is very noticeable music playing throughout the film. Now, I'm one of those terrible people that doesn't notice music unless it's brilliantly placed or horrendous, and while this music isn't horrendous it does suffer from being way too familiar. You've got Christmas tunes which work fine but the film has the Home Alone theme/feel about it and I think most people can identify those songs when they pop up anywhere.
This film has a little Inception moment at the beginning and we get a representation of the comic the boys are writing. I'm honestly a little disappointed that we didn't get to see that as a whole film of its own when it brings us the amazing line "See you in jingle hell!" spoken with such heart.
Once we get down to our regular programming it's very easy to sink into the ideas at work, there's nothing over complicated and the characters are easy to place. You get the chance to make predictors/wishes early on for who you want to die, and I was not disappointed... at the same time though I was super angry about Santa Jaws' first kill, BAD SHARK!
The acting isn't bad overall, there are some bits that come across a little cheesy and forced when we keep getting Home Alone-esque pieces thrown in, but at the same time... it's a movie about a Christmas themed shark sooooooo.
I'm not entirely sure that the comic book shop was a necessary inclusion on the whole but I can't argue with the choices the owner made... kudos... I wouldn't have wanted those missed out of the final piece.
Shark movie logic abounds and characters make tremendous leaps in deductions that further the plot. My favourite being about the Christmassy nature of the shark. I don't know how the shark's powers and weaknesses came about it the storyline but, standing ovation to you, I loved it.
I ended up getting an imported shark DVD box set so I could see this, it was definitely worth the effort. (Not the stress of trying to play it, but that's another story.) I can only hope this one hits our screens on SyFy or the Horror Channel, I'm honestly surprised it hasn't already. Santa Jaws is an amusing romp in the creature feature genre, it's a great twist on the classics (shark or Christmas film, take your pick) and for the brave I'm sure you could make a drinking game out of Christmas puns and Home Alone references... though maybe not with anything too strong, you might not make it to the end.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/santa-jaws-movie-review.html
Hadley (567 KP) rated A Luminous Republic in Books
Aug 13, 2020
Well-written (1 more)
Unpredictable
Andres Barba's A Luminous Republic has feral children, senseless murders, and a plot that keeps the story moving enough that the reader won't want to put the book down. This story creatively combines politics, murder, fear and family - - - but the best part is, the book is unpredictable.
We first meet our main character, whose name is never given throughout the entire story, when he and his family are moving to San Cristobal because of a job opportunity. He works for the Department of Social Affairs, and has just received a promotion because he has come up with a very successful plan: " I had developed a social integration program for indigenous communities. The idea was simple and the program proved to be an effective model; it consisted of granting the indigenous exclusive rights to farm certain specific product." Our main character believes that this plan will bring the farmers more money. And he is more than happy to go back to the city where he fell in-love with his now wife, Maia - - - a violin teacher who had a daughter before meeting him, who he calls 'girl' throughout the story because she is also named Maia.
While on his way to work one day, our main character comes across one of the unknown children of the jungle, which shakes him up a bit. The unknown jungle children were known to beg at street lights for money and food, but one of the grimy, frizzy-haired boys stared the man down, only to end up giving him a very wide smile. "The boy's smile unsettled me because it confirmed that there had been a connection between us, that something had begun in me ended in him." Pretty soon after, he begins to notice these unknown jungle children running around a lot more, and that sometimes their intentions are not always innocent - - - he and the 'girl' witness an elderly woman get robbed of her groceries by a group of these children in the middle of the street in a subtle but violent way.
The unknown jungle children soon begin to rob several people,and when a police officer is killed while being attacked by them, the Mayor and the police want the children off the streets as soon as possible. Working with our main character, the former and the latter try to figure out the strange language these children use, whom may be the leader among them, and where they disappear to at night. Since the story is being told from our main character's past, the book is written like a True Crime story, with names of professionals and such being cited throughout. Our main character brings up a woman, who was a young girl at the time of the jungle children's invasion on San Cristobal: Teresa Otano, who happened to 'publish' her diary from that time, which gives readers insights into the jungle children: "Often, some of the thirty-two [jungle children], on their nightly journey back to the jungle, congregated next to Teresa's house, on one corner of Antartida Avenue. At first, Teresa, enthralled, simply makes notes, logging the days on which they appeared, whether there were three, four or five of them, what they were wearing, and so forth. She establishes patterns and identifies a few of the kids..." our main character explains to the reader.
But soon, the children cross a line that they can never come back from; being told by our main character from the view of surveillance video tapes, he describes to us that the jungle children entered a supermarket after an incident with a guard that works there, they block the entrance doors and begin to destroy items throughout the store, but the chaos quickly escalates, and two adults are murdered by the children - - - fear now holds the town in its grip, causing search parties to sweep through the dense jungle after the children fled.
But murder wasn't something new to San Cristobal, our main character explains to us that the suburbs of this area usually had a murder a week all year long, and that on the outskirts of the jungle, there were known spots for drug trafficking and assaults. What made the 'Dakota Supermarket' murders scare the town was that the residents' own children began to behave differently afterwards - - - they start to play a 'game' where they put their ears to the ground, believing that they can hear the jungle children talking to them. Our main character even walks in on the 'girl' playing this exact game. "For a second it was as if I were witnessing a ritual invented by a twelve-year-old girl, and I thought of how afraid my daughter must have felt when I found her in the bathroom that day. People often remark on the self-assured quality of the invocation, its instruction-manual tone, but I'd say that its intensity actually stems from what it dispenses: adult logic, a world that no longer serves. How could our children possibly have explained to us what they were doing? We weren't prepared for their world or their logic. Somewhere out there, underground, that dissonant sound was being sent, in code: down below, chaos. "
This phenomenon attracts the attention of money/fame seekers, which includes the Zapata children. Four siblings, ranging from the ages of five to nine, claimed that the jungle children were speaking to them through their dreams. They would make drawings from what they were told by the jungle children, but state that even they didn't know what the drawings meant. The media quickly jumped on them and put them in front of a camera, causing the family's home to be surrounded by civilians at all hours of the day and night. One night, the crowd outside becomes anxious, and breaks into the house, stealing not only the drawings from the Zapata children, but also the life savings of the family. At this point, the Zapatas had had enough, and retreat from the story altogether for reasons I won't disclose here. I can't give away much more of the book without ruining the story.
Barba's attempt at making a different kind of Lord of the Flies was done well, but the lack of emotion is felt throughout the entire story which makes the characters flat, especially our main character, who I didn't find likable in any such way. He calls a grieving woman a 'whore,' and he seems rude towards his family, especially his step-daughter.
A Luminous Republic is redeemed by is unpredictability, which is something that doesn't come along in fiction that often anymore. I enjoyed that the story was written like a True Crime novel, with fictitious documentaries, news reports and books. So, I would recommend this book to people who like True Crime and Mysteries.
We first meet our main character, whose name is never given throughout the entire story, when he and his family are moving to San Cristobal because of a job opportunity. He works for the Department of Social Affairs, and has just received a promotion because he has come up with a very successful plan: " I had developed a social integration program for indigenous communities. The idea was simple and the program proved to be an effective model; it consisted of granting the indigenous exclusive rights to farm certain specific product." Our main character believes that this plan will bring the farmers more money. And he is more than happy to go back to the city where he fell in-love with his now wife, Maia - - - a violin teacher who had a daughter before meeting him, who he calls 'girl' throughout the story because she is also named Maia.
While on his way to work one day, our main character comes across one of the unknown children of the jungle, which shakes him up a bit. The unknown jungle children were known to beg at street lights for money and food, but one of the grimy, frizzy-haired boys stared the man down, only to end up giving him a very wide smile. "The boy's smile unsettled me because it confirmed that there had been a connection between us, that something had begun in me ended in him." Pretty soon after, he begins to notice these unknown jungle children running around a lot more, and that sometimes their intentions are not always innocent - - - he and the 'girl' witness an elderly woman get robbed of her groceries by a group of these children in the middle of the street in a subtle but violent way.
The unknown jungle children soon begin to rob several people,and when a police officer is killed while being attacked by them, the Mayor and the police want the children off the streets as soon as possible. Working with our main character, the former and the latter try to figure out the strange language these children use, whom may be the leader among them, and where they disappear to at night. Since the story is being told from our main character's past, the book is written like a True Crime story, with names of professionals and such being cited throughout. Our main character brings up a woman, who was a young girl at the time of the jungle children's invasion on San Cristobal: Teresa Otano, who happened to 'publish' her diary from that time, which gives readers insights into the jungle children: "Often, some of the thirty-two [jungle children], on their nightly journey back to the jungle, congregated next to Teresa's house, on one corner of Antartida Avenue. At first, Teresa, enthralled, simply makes notes, logging the days on which they appeared, whether there were three, four or five of them, what they were wearing, and so forth. She establishes patterns and identifies a few of the kids..." our main character explains to the reader.
But soon, the children cross a line that they can never come back from; being told by our main character from the view of surveillance video tapes, he describes to us that the jungle children entered a supermarket after an incident with a guard that works there, they block the entrance doors and begin to destroy items throughout the store, but the chaos quickly escalates, and two adults are murdered by the children - - - fear now holds the town in its grip, causing search parties to sweep through the dense jungle after the children fled.
But murder wasn't something new to San Cristobal, our main character explains to us that the suburbs of this area usually had a murder a week all year long, and that on the outskirts of the jungle, there were known spots for drug trafficking and assaults. What made the 'Dakota Supermarket' murders scare the town was that the residents' own children began to behave differently afterwards - - - they start to play a 'game' where they put their ears to the ground, believing that they can hear the jungle children talking to them. Our main character even walks in on the 'girl' playing this exact game. "For a second it was as if I were witnessing a ritual invented by a twelve-year-old girl, and I thought of how afraid my daughter must have felt when I found her in the bathroom that day. People often remark on the self-assured quality of the invocation, its instruction-manual tone, but I'd say that its intensity actually stems from what it dispenses: adult logic, a world that no longer serves. How could our children possibly have explained to us what they were doing? We weren't prepared for their world or their logic. Somewhere out there, underground, that dissonant sound was being sent, in code: down below, chaos. "
This phenomenon attracts the attention of money/fame seekers, which includes the Zapata children. Four siblings, ranging from the ages of five to nine, claimed that the jungle children were speaking to them through their dreams. They would make drawings from what they were told by the jungle children, but state that even they didn't know what the drawings meant. The media quickly jumped on them and put them in front of a camera, causing the family's home to be surrounded by civilians at all hours of the day and night. One night, the crowd outside becomes anxious, and breaks into the house, stealing not only the drawings from the Zapata children, but also the life savings of the family. At this point, the Zapatas had had enough, and retreat from the story altogether for reasons I won't disclose here. I can't give away much more of the book without ruining the story.
Barba's attempt at making a different kind of Lord of the Flies was done well, but the lack of emotion is felt throughout the entire story which makes the characters flat, especially our main character, who I didn't find likable in any such way. He calls a grieving woman a 'whore,' and he seems rude towards his family, especially his step-daughter.
A Luminous Republic is redeemed by is unpredictability, which is something that doesn't come along in fiction that often anymore. I enjoyed that the story was written like a True Crime novel, with fictitious documentaries, news reports and books. So, I would recommend this book to people who like True Crime and Mysteries.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated This Secret We're Keeping in Books
May 25, 2017
Well-Written
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules? This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. This Secret We’re Keeping is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
This Secret We’re Keeping causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, This Secret We’re Keeping can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, This Secret We’re Keeping was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. This Secret We’re Keeping is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules? This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. This Secret We’re Keeping is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
This Secret We’re Keeping causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, This Secret We’re Keeping can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, This Secret We’re Keeping was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. This Secret We’re Keeping is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 23, 2018
If you liked the first 4 films in this series, you'll like this one
Did you watch - and enjoy - the other 4 films in the JURASSIC PARK series? If so, then you'll enjoy the 5th installment, for it is more of the same - man's hubris causes giant animals to run amok and chaos, death and destruction ensues.
The plot of this film is simple enough - the island where JURASSIC WORLD was built is now in trouble as a dormant volcano is now dormant no more. The debate rages - should Man go to the island to save the Dinosaurs trapped there - or should they let nature take it's course (again). Some nefarious fellows - who's intentions don't seem to be as pure as we are led to believe - convince our heroes from the previous film, Claire and Owen to help "save" the dinosaurs.
But, of course, the plot is just an excuse to get some pretty awesome looking CGI Dinosaurs on the screen - and to put our heroes in peril. And on that score, this film succeeds wonderfully well.
I remember back in 1993 how awed I was at the spectacle on the screen. The CGI Dinosaurs were LIFE-LIKE! I was blown away by it. Today, I have come to expect the CGI will be top-notch - and I was not disappointed, to the point where I forgot that I was watching CGI.
As for the action and acting, Director J.A. Bayona (A MONSTER CALLS) keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, not letting us catch our breath - or more importantly - stop to think of the plausibility or logic of decisions being made. His mantra seems to be "move our heroes from peril to peril" - and he does that well.
Chris Pratt is back as Owen, the "Raptor handler" and his charm and charisma on screen is in full display and really carries the weight of this film. He is able to charm his way into the audiences heart, so you end up rooting for him fully from start to finish. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of "Opie Cunningham" Ron Howard) comes into her own as Claire, the Dinosaur "Scientist" and quasi-love interest for Owen. She is able to avoid (mostly) the cliches of "damsel in distress" or "kick-ass chick" and gives us a rounded character that I rooted for just as strongly as Pratt's character.
The rest of the cast - save two - are pretty much throw away that are set up to be Dinosaur food. The two that stood out are the great James Cromwell as an aging Billionaire who has a connection to the originator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond. Cromwell is his usual, solid self. And...the funniest character in the film...computer expert Franklin Webb (played by Justice Smith) who, of course, is asked to do more than just "computer stuff" that he is ill-equipped to handle.
Going into this film, you know what you are going to get - and this film delivers that entertainingly enough. As I stated at the top, if you like the first 4 films of this series, you'll like this one.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The plot of this film is simple enough - the island where JURASSIC WORLD was built is now in trouble as a dormant volcano is now dormant no more. The debate rages - should Man go to the island to save the Dinosaurs trapped there - or should they let nature take it's course (again). Some nefarious fellows - who's intentions don't seem to be as pure as we are led to believe - convince our heroes from the previous film, Claire and Owen to help "save" the dinosaurs.
But, of course, the plot is just an excuse to get some pretty awesome looking CGI Dinosaurs on the screen - and to put our heroes in peril. And on that score, this film succeeds wonderfully well.
I remember back in 1993 how awed I was at the spectacle on the screen. The CGI Dinosaurs were LIFE-LIKE! I was blown away by it. Today, I have come to expect the CGI will be top-notch - and I was not disappointed, to the point where I forgot that I was watching CGI.
As for the action and acting, Director J.A. Bayona (A MONSTER CALLS) keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, not letting us catch our breath - or more importantly - stop to think of the plausibility or logic of decisions being made. His mantra seems to be "move our heroes from peril to peril" - and he does that well.
Chris Pratt is back as Owen, the "Raptor handler" and his charm and charisma on screen is in full display and really carries the weight of this film. He is able to charm his way into the audiences heart, so you end up rooting for him fully from start to finish. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of "Opie Cunningham" Ron Howard) comes into her own as Claire, the Dinosaur "Scientist" and quasi-love interest for Owen. She is able to avoid (mostly) the cliches of "damsel in distress" or "kick-ass chick" and gives us a rounded character that I rooted for just as strongly as Pratt's character.
The rest of the cast - save two - are pretty much throw away that are set up to be Dinosaur food. The two that stood out are the great James Cromwell as an aging Billionaire who has a connection to the originator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond. Cromwell is his usual, solid self. And...the funniest character in the film...computer expert Franklin Webb (played by Justice Smith) who, of course, is asked to do more than just "computer stuff" that he is ill-equipped to handle.
Going into this film, you know what you are going to get - and this film delivers that entertainingly enough. As I stated at the top, if you like the first 4 films of this series, you'll like this one.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)