Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
It seems recently that the Disney vault has exploded with the release of several of their classic animated films being remade. Unfortunately, the classics that have inspired these remakes have been redone with mixed results. The original The Lion King was released back in 1994 and it’s hard to believe that I was a junior in college when I saw it. Since that time, we’ve seen various iterations of the classic story, a few direct to VCR sequels and the awe-inspiring Broadway stage production (which if you are a serious fan of the movie I encourage you to see). It seems odd to discuss the plot of a movie that I’m certain everyone reading this has seen at least once (or a dozen times over). To the uninformed however, The Lion King is about a young cub named Simba (JD McCrary as the young voice and Donald Glover as the adult) who suffers the tragic loss of his father Mufasa (James Earl Jones) at the paws of his evil uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Scar convinces Simba that he is responsible for his father’s death and that he must leave the pride and never return. With the help of his faithful friends Timon (Billy Eichner), the lovable warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), the ever wise Zazu (John Oliver) and his budding queen Nala (Beyoncé’) he learns that true courage comes from within and realizes he must face Scar if he is ever to bring peace back to the Pride Lands.
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sorrim in Tabletop Games
Sep 2, 2020
Head to head competitive games are great, especially during the current lockdown situation. My wife and I could play 1v1 games all the time and be quite happy. That’s why we really enjoy abstract games so much. However, head to head fighting card games are something that my wife and I can kinda get heated over. How did Sorrim do for us? Keep reading.
Sorrim is a competitive 1v1 (or 2v2 or 3v3) card game for two players. A player wins once all of their opponent’s fighters have been knocked out. Fighters are all of differing magic (element) types and therefore can only be equipped with sigils (spells and attacks) of matching type. Whittling the opposing fighters’ health to zero will award triumphant players victory!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and all copies will have components matching these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. You are invited to order from The Game Crafter directly, your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after it is released. -T
To setup the game, separate and shuffle the fighter deck and sigil deck. Deal each player a set of colored chips to keep track of values for each fighter. Fighter cards will be flipped and revealed at the beginning of the conflict. Roll the die to determine starting player and the game can begin! Note: this preview will be using the introductory 1v1 setup, though games can also be played on 2v2 and 3v3 modes with slightly different rules.
Each fighter will have their own stats to track as shown on their cards: Might, Altruism, Trickery, Health. Fighters will also possess special abilities printed on their cards to be used during the game.
Sigil cards will show either the word “Passive,” which will be active throughout the game or triggered by a special event, or they will show a group of numbers to indicate the required rolls needed to launch a successful attack.
On a player’s turn they will consult the fighter’s passive abilities to see if they will trigger. Next, the player will roll the die and compare with their cards to cast a sigil (spell). If the rolled result matches a sigil it may be cast. Opponents will check any passive abilities and adjust Health by amount of the fighter’s Might. Play continues in this fashion until one player’s fighters are all reduced to zero Health. That player loses and the winner must then mock the loser until the next game played.
Components. This game consists of some cards, a die, and some translucent chips. Each copy will be provided a link to the designer’s document to print off the rulebook and the stat sheets to track fighter stats as they change throughout the game. The cards are acceptable quality, the die is just an entry-level normal d6 (we were sent green with white ink), and the chips are TiddlyWink style. Everything is… fine. The art leaves some to be desired, especially in this era of gaming where art can elevate a good game to great, and a great game to amazing. This art does not help Sorrim. It’s not terrible, but it’s not wonderful either. Not my style.
All in all, the game is actually pretty decent. It is very quick-playing, especially the 1v1 mode, and after playing one game you kinda want to try some of the other fighter and sigil combinations. Any time a game makes you want to play more, that’s a great thing.
With Sorrim, my final thoughts are that it is a good game. I wouldn’t call it great, but there are several interesting mechanics and the variability/replayability built in is quite good. There are lots of two player battle card games, and Sorrim brings something a little different. The theme is enjoyable, and the gameplay is fast. There isn’t a ton of strategy involved as turns are dependent on rolling a number that matches your sigil cards, but it does deliver an easy-feeling, low-stress battle game for two. For some reason you just don’t feel annoyed when you lose, as can be the case with other PvP games. If you are looking for something in your collection that gives you this quick gameplay and is relatively rules-light, head over to The Game Crafter and give Sorrim a try.
Sorrim is a competitive 1v1 (or 2v2 or 3v3) card game for two players. A player wins once all of their opponent’s fighters have been knocked out. Fighters are all of differing magic (element) types and therefore can only be equipped with sigils (spells and attacks) of matching type. Whittling the opposing fighters’ health to zero will award triumphant players victory!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and all copies will have components matching these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. You are invited to order from The Game Crafter directly, your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after it is released. -T
To setup the game, separate and shuffle the fighter deck and sigil deck. Deal each player a set of colored chips to keep track of values for each fighter. Fighter cards will be flipped and revealed at the beginning of the conflict. Roll the die to determine starting player and the game can begin! Note: this preview will be using the introductory 1v1 setup, though games can also be played on 2v2 and 3v3 modes with slightly different rules.
Each fighter will have their own stats to track as shown on their cards: Might, Altruism, Trickery, Health. Fighters will also possess special abilities printed on their cards to be used during the game.
Sigil cards will show either the word “Passive,” which will be active throughout the game or triggered by a special event, or they will show a group of numbers to indicate the required rolls needed to launch a successful attack.
On a player’s turn they will consult the fighter’s passive abilities to see if they will trigger. Next, the player will roll the die and compare with their cards to cast a sigil (spell). If the rolled result matches a sigil it may be cast. Opponents will check any passive abilities and adjust Health by amount of the fighter’s Might. Play continues in this fashion until one player’s fighters are all reduced to zero Health. That player loses and the winner must then mock the loser until the next game played.
Components. This game consists of some cards, a die, and some translucent chips. Each copy will be provided a link to the designer’s document to print off the rulebook and the stat sheets to track fighter stats as they change throughout the game. The cards are acceptable quality, the die is just an entry-level normal d6 (we were sent green with white ink), and the chips are TiddlyWink style. Everything is… fine. The art leaves some to be desired, especially in this era of gaming where art can elevate a good game to great, and a great game to amazing. This art does not help Sorrim. It’s not terrible, but it’s not wonderful either. Not my style.
All in all, the game is actually pretty decent. It is very quick-playing, especially the 1v1 mode, and after playing one game you kinda want to try some of the other fighter and sigil combinations. Any time a game makes you want to play more, that’s a great thing.
With Sorrim, my final thoughts are that it is a good game. I wouldn’t call it great, but there are several interesting mechanics and the variability/replayability built in is quite good. There are lots of two player battle card games, and Sorrim brings something a little different. The theme is enjoyable, and the gameplay is fast. There isn’t a ton of strategy involved as turns are dependent on rolling a number that matches your sigil cards, but it does deliver an easy-feeling, low-stress battle game for two. For some reason you just don’t feel annoyed when you lose, as can be the case with other PvP games. If you are looking for something in your collection that gives you this quick gameplay and is relatively rules-light, head over to The Game Crafter and give Sorrim a try.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Guns Akimbo (2019) in Movies
May 20, 2020
When I first heard about Guns Akimbo I was very interested in seeing it, when I next heard about it... well, it wasn't exactly a happy internet moment. Despite the actions of one person though you shouldn't write off something that so many people worked on, that meant I was still keen.
Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.
The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.
Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.
The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.
Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.
As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.
There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.
We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html
Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.
The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.
Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.
The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.
Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.
As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.
There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.
We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
We DO remember them.
“Trapped in a Charlie Chaplin World”. So says director Peter Jackson in a post-screening discussion with Mark Kermode, describing early black and white documentary footage. Whereas modern film runs at 24 fps, most of the old footage is hand cranked, with speeds as low as 12 fps which leads to its jerky nature. Jackson in this project with the Imperial War Museum took their WW1 footage and put it through a ‘pipeline process. This cleaned-up and restored the original footage; used clever computer interpolation to add in the missing 6 to 12 frames per second; and then colourised it.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019 (Updated Feb 17, 2019)
I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now
Contains spoilers, click to show
“I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now.”
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Fractured (Mirrorland, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
Everyone knows I love a good horror book. In fact, I can't resist a good horror book. Luckily, this one was fairly decent.
Okay, so the blurb is pretty spot on. I won't put it into my own words since I'd just be reiterating what the book blurb said.
I like the cover. I don't love it, but I definitely like it. I like the creepy feel to it. Yes, it could've been a bit creepier, but it's still a good cover.
I guess the title is okay. I think it's the whole symbolism for a title that a lot of books have going on. I guess you could say that Piper is a bit of a fractured girl, but I don't really see how the title would fit anywhere else. This is probably just me though.
The world building is okay. Mostly, it is believable although there's a couple of things that don't make it 100% believable. First off, this book makes demons look a bit weak. When a character can outrun a demon, something's up. From my knowledge of demons, they are pretty powerful. I doubt anyone could outrun a demon because they're younger or in better shape. Also, I'm also pretty sure that you couldn't hit a demon with enough force to do any damage. Again, demons are pretty powerful. I've never had a run in with a demon (thank God), but I'm guessing they are exactly weak. I also spotted a continuity error. One of the characters tells another to use her car to drive to the hospital which that character does. However, in the next chapter, this same character with the car tells another character to use her car which she does. Now, unless she can magic up the same car, I don't believe this can happen.
I think the pacing was a little slow to begin with, but it picked up during the second half of the book. For the first half, I really thought I was going to have to give this book a DNF (did not finish) rating. Luckily, the second half straps you in and takes you for a fast ride!
I enjoyed the whole spirit in a mirror thing. It's been done before, but I enjoyed the way it was executed in this book. I've always been a little bit scared of what lurks in mirrors, and this book just added to my fear. I'm really glad I read most of this book during the day, just saying. I predicted the whole plot twist. In my opinion, it was easy to predict, but that could be just because I try to figure out plot twists in every book. Also, if you're looking for a HEA (happily ever after) ending, then, well, you'll be sorely disappointed. There's no major cliff hanger even though this is a series which I was happy about.
I enjoyed the characters. I would've like a bit more back story on all of them, but I still found them enjoyable to read about. I could relate with all of Piper's emotions, and I felt scared for her when something was happening. I would've liked to see more Alison in the book though. For some odd reason, she became my favorite character even though she isn't heavily featured throughout the book. One thing that did bother me was the stereotyping. There is a goth girl named Felicia in the book, and she is your very stereotypical goth girl. For example, she wears all black, she's very quiet, and she wears a lot of crosses. Stereotyping in any book is a pet peeve of mine.
I found the dialogue to be a bit hit and miss. Keep in mind that these characters are supposed to be in high school. There were times when it felt as if they were from another decade, not the one we're presently in. They just used words and phrases that just seemed awkward for a teen. Saying that, even though the dialogue was a bit weird, this didn't put me off the book.
Overall, Fractured by Majanka Verstraete is a decent book and at times, a little spooky. With a little more work, this book has the potential to be a super scary read. I will definitely be reading the next book in the Mirrorland series.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are looking for an excuse to leave the light on at night.
I'd give Fractured (Mirrorland #1) by Majanka Verstraete a 3.5 out of 5.
(I received a free ebook of this title from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Everyone knows I love a good horror book. In fact, I can't resist a good horror book. Luckily, this one was fairly decent.
Okay, so the blurb is pretty spot on. I won't put it into my own words since I'd just be reiterating what the book blurb said.
I like the cover. I don't love it, but I definitely like it. I like the creepy feel to it. Yes, it could've been a bit creepier, but it's still a good cover.
I guess the title is okay. I think it's the whole symbolism for a title that a lot of books have going on. I guess you could say that Piper is a bit of a fractured girl, but I don't really see how the title would fit anywhere else. This is probably just me though.
The world building is okay. Mostly, it is believable although there's a couple of things that don't make it 100% believable. First off, this book makes demons look a bit weak. When a character can outrun a demon, something's up. From my knowledge of demons, they are pretty powerful. I doubt anyone could outrun a demon because they're younger or in better shape. Also, I'm also pretty sure that you couldn't hit a demon with enough force to do any damage. Again, demons are pretty powerful. I've never had a run in with a demon (thank God), but I'm guessing they are exactly weak. I also spotted a continuity error. One of the characters tells another to use her car to drive to the hospital which that character does. However, in the next chapter, this same character with the car tells another character to use her car which she does. Now, unless she can magic up the same car, I don't believe this can happen.
I think the pacing was a little slow to begin with, but it picked up during the second half of the book. For the first half, I really thought I was going to have to give this book a DNF (did not finish) rating. Luckily, the second half straps you in and takes you for a fast ride!
I enjoyed the whole spirit in a mirror thing. It's been done before, but I enjoyed the way it was executed in this book. I've always been a little bit scared of what lurks in mirrors, and this book just added to my fear. I'm really glad I read most of this book during the day, just saying. I predicted the whole plot twist. In my opinion, it was easy to predict, but that could be just because I try to figure out plot twists in every book. Also, if you're looking for a HEA (happily ever after) ending, then, well, you'll be sorely disappointed. There's no major cliff hanger even though this is a series which I was happy about.
I enjoyed the characters. I would've like a bit more back story on all of them, but I still found them enjoyable to read about. I could relate with all of Piper's emotions, and I felt scared for her when something was happening. I would've liked to see more Alison in the book though. For some odd reason, she became my favorite character even though she isn't heavily featured throughout the book. One thing that did bother me was the stereotyping. There is a goth girl named Felicia in the book, and she is your very stereotypical goth girl. For example, she wears all black, she's very quiet, and she wears a lot of crosses. Stereotyping in any book is a pet peeve of mine.
I found the dialogue to be a bit hit and miss. Keep in mind that these characters are supposed to be in high school. There were times when it felt as if they were from another decade, not the one we're presently in. They just used words and phrases that just seemed awkward for a teen. Saying that, even though the dialogue was a bit weird, this didn't put me off the book.
Overall, Fractured by Majanka Verstraete is a decent book and at times, a little spooky. With a little more work, this book has the potential to be a super scary read. I will definitely be reading the next book in the Mirrorland series.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are looking for an excuse to leave the light on at night.
I'd give Fractured (Mirrorland #1) by Majanka Verstraete a 3.5 out of 5.
(I received a free ebook of this title from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children in Books
Aug 3, 2018
It doesn’t hurt me to say that I have watched the movie before I read the book. What hurts me to say is that even though I loved the book, I enjoyed the movie way more. But I am not here to compare the book and the movie, because I loved them both in a different way.
‘’I had just come to accept that my life would be ordinary when extraordinary things began to happen.’’
Jacob was raised by his grandfather, who told him stories about the amazing house he used to live in, and all the children that lived with him, that had amazing abilities and were different than ordinary people. Grandpa Portman would even show Jacob pictures of the children and their peculiarities - he would tell him stories about the invisible boy, the girl that could float if she didn’t have iron boots, the girl that could breath out fire and the children that could easily lift the heaviest rocks. He would also talk about the danger and the big monsters that the children were so scared of.
And Jacob believed and loved these stories - he shared an amazing bond with his grandpa. Until, of course, he grew up. Suddenly, he was old enough to know this isn’t true, and stopped believing. His grandpa would try to convince him, and warn him that the monsters are coming, but the only conclusion he had is that his grandpa lost his marbles.
But then his grandpa dies, and Jacob sees the monsters himself. Despite everyone believing that he is crazy, just like his grandpa, Jacob now has no choice but to find these strange children - and get answers to all his questions.
The book moves quite slow, and it is not until half of the book that we actually get to meet the children. As a person that watched the movie, this was extremely frustrating, as I kept waiting and waiting, and nothing special happened for 90 pages.
The author puts photographs in the book, and they are perfectly put in the book to explain how a character looks, and to describe the scene better. This was the strawberry to my cake in this book. I immensely enjoyed the beautiful photographs and how perfectly well they fitted with the book and detailed the characters. The only character that I couldn’t imagine was Miss Peregrine - her picture is not at all what I expected. At first, I thought about sharing some of those pictures here - but then, I assumed you might enjoy them more if you explore them yourself while reading the book, as they come - as I could never be able to do that as well as Ransom Riggs did.
For the ones you watched the movie first - the movie is not at all the same as the book. So lower your expectations, otherwise you will be disappointed. The movie seemed to have put three books into one, and swapped people’s abilities, and made up some scenes and places.
The book, however, had parts that you wouldn’t see in the movie, and its own magic of detailed descriptions to your favorite stories and characters.
I hated Jacob. Not just at the beginning, but all the way through. Mister ‘’I-am-too-good-for-everything’’ , Mister ‘’My-family-is-so-rich-I-will-try-my-best-to-get-fired-from-work-because-my-uncle-owns-the-shop’’. No - Just no. As much as I enjoyed his story, his character is very egocentric and unlikeable. I actually liked Grandpa Abe so much more, even though he was only partially and ghostly present in the book.
Miss Peregrine didn’t reveal much of her character as she does in the movie. We don’t get to read a lot about her to be honest, and she was the one person I expected to see more of.
We get to hang around with the children a lot though, and meet Emma, the girl that has fire powers, and that used to be Grandpa Abe’s lover and now Jacob - which is more than weird, but oh well…
‘’She moved to pinch me again but I blocked her hand. I’m no expert on girls, but when one tries to pinch you four times, I’m pretty sure that’s flirting.’’
We get to meet Millard, the invisible boy, Olive, the girl that can float without her iron boots, Fiona, who can make plants and trees grow in seconds and many other lovely children with even lovelier abilities.
This is an amazing story about extraordinary people, children who will amuse you with how cute they can be, a bit of (well, a lot of) time travel and a great valuable lesson that everyone in this world is peculiar and extraordinary in their own way! A must-read to all of you that love some fantasy stories and different worlds.
‘’I had just come to accept that my life would be ordinary when extraordinary things began to happen.’’
Jacob was raised by his grandfather, who told him stories about the amazing house he used to live in, and all the children that lived with him, that had amazing abilities and were different than ordinary people. Grandpa Portman would even show Jacob pictures of the children and their peculiarities - he would tell him stories about the invisible boy, the girl that could float if she didn’t have iron boots, the girl that could breath out fire and the children that could easily lift the heaviest rocks. He would also talk about the danger and the big monsters that the children were so scared of.
And Jacob believed and loved these stories - he shared an amazing bond with his grandpa. Until, of course, he grew up. Suddenly, he was old enough to know this isn’t true, and stopped believing. His grandpa would try to convince him, and warn him that the monsters are coming, but the only conclusion he had is that his grandpa lost his marbles.
But then his grandpa dies, and Jacob sees the monsters himself. Despite everyone believing that he is crazy, just like his grandpa, Jacob now has no choice but to find these strange children - and get answers to all his questions.
The book moves quite slow, and it is not until half of the book that we actually get to meet the children. As a person that watched the movie, this was extremely frustrating, as I kept waiting and waiting, and nothing special happened for 90 pages.
The author puts photographs in the book, and they are perfectly put in the book to explain how a character looks, and to describe the scene better. This was the strawberry to my cake in this book. I immensely enjoyed the beautiful photographs and how perfectly well they fitted with the book and detailed the characters. The only character that I couldn’t imagine was Miss Peregrine - her picture is not at all what I expected. At first, I thought about sharing some of those pictures here - but then, I assumed you might enjoy them more if you explore them yourself while reading the book, as they come - as I could never be able to do that as well as Ransom Riggs did.
For the ones you watched the movie first - the movie is not at all the same as the book. So lower your expectations, otherwise you will be disappointed. The movie seemed to have put three books into one, and swapped people’s abilities, and made up some scenes and places.
The book, however, had parts that you wouldn’t see in the movie, and its own magic of detailed descriptions to your favorite stories and characters.
I hated Jacob. Not just at the beginning, but all the way through. Mister ‘’I-am-too-good-for-everything’’ , Mister ‘’My-family-is-so-rich-I-will-try-my-best-to-get-fired-from-work-because-my-uncle-owns-the-shop’’. No - Just no. As much as I enjoyed his story, his character is very egocentric and unlikeable. I actually liked Grandpa Abe so much more, even though he was only partially and ghostly present in the book.
Miss Peregrine didn’t reveal much of her character as she does in the movie. We don’t get to read a lot about her to be honest, and she was the one person I expected to see more of.
We get to hang around with the children a lot though, and meet Emma, the girl that has fire powers, and that used to be Grandpa Abe’s lover and now Jacob - which is more than weird, but oh well…
‘’She moved to pinch me again but I blocked her hand. I’m no expert on girls, but when one tries to pinch you four times, I’m pretty sure that’s flirting.’’
We get to meet Millard, the invisible boy, Olive, the girl that can float without her iron boots, Fiona, who can make plants and trees grow in seconds and many other lovely children with even lovelier abilities.
This is an amazing story about extraordinary people, children who will amuse you with how cute they can be, a bit of (well, a lot of) time travel and a great valuable lesson that everyone in this world is peculiar and extraordinary in their own way! A must-read to all of you that love some fantasy stories and different worlds.
The Chairport (1 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 4, 2018
Real action (3 more)
Real stunts
Fantastically scored
Beautiful locations and cinematography
Pay the admission, accept this mission!
(Review from www.thechairport.com)When the Mission Impossible film franchise started it had a slightly rocky start. After a great first film, the second film fell short of the mark. Watching those first two films now you can see how different they are to the Mission we know now. Ever since the second Mission film, ever since JJ Abrams and the Bad Robot team took over, the Mission franchise has been ageing like a fine wine. Actually, it’s been ageing like Tom Cruise. Fallout, the sixth film in the Mission franchise is the best yet and easily one of the best action films of all time and it’s all thanks to its real action.
Mission Impossible: Fallout follows Ethan Hunt as he and his crew lose some plutonium they are trying to recover. The bad guys trying to use the plutonium are The Apostles, a spin-off group from Rogue Nation’s Syndicate. This time the IMF team are joined by a ruthless CIA agent, Walker played by Henry Cavill, who is there to ensure that the team retrieve the plutonium. The bad guys this time around, The Apostles, follow Solomon Lane’s thinking that to get peace the world must first experience a great suffering. With that line ringing throughout the IMF’s ears, the team is off on a race against time to stop The Apostles.
Fallout is filled with action and as far as action movies come, this film really takes the cake. Tom Cruise is just the man that everyone wants to be, as in he really seems like he can do anything. In the current state of cinema any other filmmaking team would’ve made this film with CGI effects all over yet Cruise and Fallout’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, have decided to do everything for real and it’s that element alone that makes the film.
There are moments in Fallout where you just sit there astonished by what you’re seeing happen in front of you. You feel shivers and the need to applause at the opening ten minutes of the film, your eye’s dash across the screen as you’re watching Cruise’s Ethan Hunt race through oncoming traffic in Paris and you’ll find yourself simply flabbergasted as you watch Cruise do anything at all in the helicopter sequence that you’ve definitely already heard about.
Mission Impossible: Fallout isn’t just simply an insane action blockbuster, it is more than that. Every actor on the screen knows that what they’re in is going to be something revolutionary for cinema and every actor really pulls their weight. Simon Pegg’s comedy is on point, Alec Baldwin’s acting as someone in charge is as good as ever, Henry Cavill being absolutely brutal is scary and cool at the same time. Fallout also has a good amount of female characters in it with Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan bringing a lot of well-needed emotion and Vanessa Kirby’s Black Widow bringing a funny yet creepy vibe to the whole occasion.
The story is fairly simple as McQuarrie doesn’t want to isolate the audience, you can definitely see it if you haven’t seen other Mission Films. It’s McQuarrie and his team’s filmmaking that really make the film what it is. The cameraman who does the HALO jump with Tom Cruise deserves many awards and I would be surprised if the film, and its team, didn’t win any awards for filmmaking. If you’ve got free time too then look up how the film was made because it is quite interesting. I mean it’s rare that an action blockbuster would even be nominated but as of right now Fallout is my favourite film of the year, both for how good it is and then researching how it was made. People just don’t put in as much effort as the Mission team have done in films anymore.
Mission Impossible: Fallout is a must-see film. It’s a long film but never really feels like it. It’s a constant chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat and it has twists and turns that you won’t see coming. I was recently reading about how Christopher Nolan wanted The Dark Knight to bring back film instead of everyone filming digitally. Fallout sings a similar message and but its message is for real-life stunts. Mquarrie has evolved in a similar manner to how Nolan evolved between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Fallout gave me similar vibes of excitement and intensity and Fallout will leave its mark on you, I’m not sure how I’ll feel watching CGI action from now on. All I know is that making everything real instead of fake isn’t impossible but to repeat the magic that Fallout has, well that’s only something the Mission team can do. Mission accomplished Cruise, mission accomplished.
Score: 5/5
Mission Impossible: Fallout follows Ethan Hunt as he and his crew lose some plutonium they are trying to recover. The bad guys trying to use the plutonium are The Apostles, a spin-off group from Rogue Nation’s Syndicate. This time the IMF team are joined by a ruthless CIA agent, Walker played by Henry Cavill, who is there to ensure that the team retrieve the plutonium. The bad guys this time around, The Apostles, follow Solomon Lane’s thinking that to get peace the world must first experience a great suffering. With that line ringing throughout the IMF’s ears, the team is off on a race against time to stop The Apostles.
Fallout is filled with action and as far as action movies come, this film really takes the cake. Tom Cruise is just the man that everyone wants to be, as in he really seems like he can do anything. In the current state of cinema any other filmmaking team would’ve made this film with CGI effects all over yet Cruise and Fallout’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, have decided to do everything for real and it’s that element alone that makes the film.
There are moments in Fallout where you just sit there astonished by what you’re seeing happen in front of you. You feel shivers and the need to applause at the opening ten minutes of the film, your eye’s dash across the screen as you’re watching Cruise’s Ethan Hunt race through oncoming traffic in Paris and you’ll find yourself simply flabbergasted as you watch Cruise do anything at all in the helicopter sequence that you’ve definitely already heard about.
Mission Impossible: Fallout isn’t just simply an insane action blockbuster, it is more than that. Every actor on the screen knows that what they’re in is going to be something revolutionary for cinema and every actor really pulls their weight. Simon Pegg’s comedy is on point, Alec Baldwin’s acting as someone in charge is as good as ever, Henry Cavill being absolutely brutal is scary and cool at the same time. Fallout also has a good amount of female characters in it with Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan bringing a lot of well-needed emotion and Vanessa Kirby’s Black Widow bringing a funny yet creepy vibe to the whole occasion.
The story is fairly simple as McQuarrie doesn’t want to isolate the audience, you can definitely see it if you haven’t seen other Mission Films. It’s McQuarrie and his team’s filmmaking that really make the film what it is. The cameraman who does the HALO jump with Tom Cruise deserves many awards and I would be surprised if the film, and its team, didn’t win any awards for filmmaking. If you’ve got free time too then look up how the film was made because it is quite interesting. I mean it’s rare that an action blockbuster would even be nominated but as of right now Fallout is my favourite film of the year, both for how good it is and then researching how it was made. People just don’t put in as much effort as the Mission team have done in films anymore.
Mission Impossible: Fallout is a must-see film. It’s a long film but never really feels like it. It’s a constant chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat and it has twists and turns that you won’t see coming. I was recently reading about how Christopher Nolan wanted The Dark Knight to bring back film instead of everyone filming digitally. Fallout sings a similar message and but its message is for real-life stunts. Mquarrie has evolved in a similar manner to how Nolan evolved between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Fallout gave me similar vibes of excitement and intensity and Fallout will leave its mark on you, I’m not sure how I’ll feel watching CGI action from now on. All I know is that making everything real instead of fake isn’t impossible but to repeat the magic that Fallout has, well that’s only something the Mission team can do. Mission accomplished Cruise, mission accomplished.
Score: 5/5