Search
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lockout (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the later part of the 21st-century the worst criminals the planet has to offer are kept safely away from public in stasis aboard an orbiting prison known as MS: One. Although it is never explained in the film, it does not take a rocket scientist to guess that “MS” stands for Maximum Security and much like the rest of the movie “Lockout”, this is a film that does not aspire to be more than the sum of its heavily borrowed parts.
The film stars Guy Pearce as Snow, a special agent who has been wrongly accused in the killing of a high-ranking operative. Railroaded through the system, Snow is looking at a lengthy sentence.
At the same time, the presidents daughter Emily (Maggie Grace), has visited MS: One on a goodwill tour. One of her special causes is to confirm the truth that long-term stasis has damaging psychological and neurological effects for the prisoners. Since the prison is funded by a deep space research development she definitely sees conflict of interest in how prisoners are being treated.
Things take a turn for the worse when a violent prisoner goes off during his interview and proceeds to release pent-up inmate population and take the crew hostage. The prisoners run amok and for the time being are unaware that they had president’s daughter in their midst. Snow was given an ultimatum that the successful retrieval of the first daughter will help him avoid becoming a future resident of the orbiting prison.
Despite his misgivings, Snow accepts the assignment as he learns that one of his friends is incarcerated on board. This friend holds valuable information that can exonerates Snow from his charges. Once on board the station, Snow must battle mobs of psychopaths as he attempts to locate and rescue Emily.
While one would think this premise would hold plenty of excitement, thrills, and suspense, the film is essentially undone by its inability to sustain any real momentum for any developed and real tension.
While the prisoners do a great job of appearing menacing, torturing and killing the hostages, we really never learn of their true objective. At no time do they really make any serious demands for freedom, material goods, and so on which basically leaves them vulnerable to an all-out attack from the amassing forces around the prison.
One would think they would’ve asked for something as simple as pardons but they seem more interested in glaring threats to the president and the authorities via videoconference, not truly grasping the magnitude of their situation.
Pearce does a good job as the gruff Snow but sadly the script gives him very little to do other than smug one-liners and occasionally shoot the bad guys. Smith does show some spark and personality in her performance but she is given little to do aside from playing the damsel in distress although she doesn infuse the role with some strength and humor.
What really surprised me about the movie was even though it borrowed very heavily from Fortress 1 & 2 as well as an escape from New York, and have surprisingly little new to offer. It was clear that the intention was to create a diehard style film in space but unfortunately it fell relatively flat.
This was a huge surprise to me as one would think that Luc Besson and many of the creative talents that made “Taken” such a thrilling smash would have been able to come up with a better action film.
This is not to say that “Lockout” is a bad film more than it is a disappointment considering the premise, cast, and the potential that it had going for it.
I can certainly overlook plot holes, thinly crafted stock characters, and run-of-the-mill action sequences in my action films as long as they can get me some solid entertainment.
Sadly this is not the case and it plays out more like a direct to DVD release that’s certainly would be extremely welcome us and Netflix are red box rental but for my taste thanks to the lo-res and dated special effects did not warrant a major theatrical release.
The film stars Guy Pearce as Snow, a special agent who has been wrongly accused in the killing of a high-ranking operative. Railroaded through the system, Snow is looking at a lengthy sentence.
At the same time, the presidents daughter Emily (Maggie Grace), has visited MS: One on a goodwill tour. One of her special causes is to confirm the truth that long-term stasis has damaging psychological and neurological effects for the prisoners. Since the prison is funded by a deep space research development she definitely sees conflict of interest in how prisoners are being treated.
Things take a turn for the worse when a violent prisoner goes off during his interview and proceeds to release pent-up inmate population and take the crew hostage. The prisoners run amok and for the time being are unaware that they had president’s daughter in their midst. Snow was given an ultimatum that the successful retrieval of the first daughter will help him avoid becoming a future resident of the orbiting prison.
Despite his misgivings, Snow accepts the assignment as he learns that one of his friends is incarcerated on board. This friend holds valuable information that can exonerates Snow from his charges. Once on board the station, Snow must battle mobs of psychopaths as he attempts to locate and rescue Emily.
While one would think this premise would hold plenty of excitement, thrills, and suspense, the film is essentially undone by its inability to sustain any real momentum for any developed and real tension.
While the prisoners do a great job of appearing menacing, torturing and killing the hostages, we really never learn of their true objective. At no time do they really make any serious demands for freedom, material goods, and so on which basically leaves them vulnerable to an all-out attack from the amassing forces around the prison.
One would think they would’ve asked for something as simple as pardons but they seem more interested in glaring threats to the president and the authorities via videoconference, not truly grasping the magnitude of their situation.
Pearce does a good job as the gruff Snow but sadly the script gives him very little to do other than smug one-liners and occasionally shoot the bad guys. Smith does show some spark and personality in her performance but she is given little to do aside from playing the damsel in distress although she doesn infuse the role with some strength and humor.
What really surprised me about the movie was even though it borrowed very heavily from Fortress 1 & 2 as well as an escape from New York, and have surprisingly little new to offer. It was clear that the intention was to create a diehard style film in space but unfortunately it fell relatively flat.
This was a huge surprise to me as one would think that Luc Besson and many of the creative talents that made “Taken” such a thrilling smash would have been able to come up with a better action film.
This is not to say that “Lockout” is a bad film more than it is a disappointment considering the premise, cast, and the potential that it had going for it.
I can certainly overlook plot holes, thinly crafted stock characters, and run-of-the-mill action sequences in my action films as long as they can get me some solid entertainment.
Sadly this is not the case and it plays out more like a direct to DVD release that’s certainly would be extremely welcome us and Netflix are red box rental but for my taste thanks to the lo-res and dated special effects did not warrant a major theatrical release.
The Life and Songs of Stephen Foster: A Revealing Portrait of the Forgotten Man Behind Swanee River, Beautiful Dreamer, and My Old Kentucky Home
Book
The Life and Songs of Stephen Foster offers an engaging reassessment of the life, politics, and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Zombie Strippers (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the not too distant future where George Bush has somehow fluked his way into another term as president, a chemo-virus has broken out in a small town. The Z-Squad is sent in to eliminate the problem, but a member of the squad gets infected and flees. He manages to to find refuge in an underground strip club, which has also been deemed illegal by the government of the future. The soldier takes a turn for the worse and finds himself a member of the undead only to take the club's biggest star as his first victim. She continues to dance and the odd thing is...the customers love it. Zombie strippers are the new sex appeal. As the money piles up, so do the victims. Will the chemo-virus continue to spread and if so...how will it be contained?
First of all, don't be confused. This is movie is one of the cheesiest films ever. I almost turned it off several times and I honestly can't tell you why I'm reviewing this thing. The sad thing is it's like a trainwreck in slow motion. You can't look away from it once you start watching and you have to see not only how it's going to end, but who's going to make it out alive. Not that you really care, but you wonder whose really deemed worthy of surviving said trainwreck. It is ludicrous, ridiculous, and absurd...but it's amusing as hell.
How ridiculous is it? Let's see...strippers being turned into zombies and becoming super strippers, zombies being sexy, having the most stereotypical Mexican janitor...ever, the casts biggest names being Jenna Jameson and Robert Englund, special effects you'd find in Xena: Warrior Princess, a Christian stripping for her nanna, Jenna Jameson shooting ping pong balls and pool balls out her...well...I'll let you see that for yourself, angry dragons, and foamy chewbaccas...the list goes on and on. I'm sure I missed so many more. The sad thing is that despite being the cheesiest of cheese and being as bad as it is, there's still a few good things buried under the cheese. It's kind of like an enchilada made with cheap cheese. All the cheap stuff is on the outside, but there's some good stuff on the inside. The most obvious being that there's a lot of nudity in this, which is good because it'll probably be one of the only things that'll keep anyone watching. Robert Englund's over the top performance as the germophobic strip club owner is pretty memorable. Also, the make-up effects are surprisingly good at times. The special effects are horrid, but the make-up is actually better than you think it'd be.
In a film as ridiculously cheesy as this, I can't blame anyone if they turn it off before it reaches the half hour mark. The thing is though if you stick with it, it's actually enjoyable because it's so bad. It's cheesy, it's amusing, the acting is so bad that you'll be quoting it for days, the plot is pointless, and it even has a weak attempt at a twist in the ending! My point is that it's a bad film and I'm not defending it, but if you manage to sit through the whole thing...you may find yourself enjoying parts of it like I did.
First of all, don't be confused. This is movie is one of the cheesiest films ever. I almost turned it off several times and I honestly can't tell you why I'm reviewing this thing. The sad thing is it's like a trainwreck in slow motion. You can't look away from it once you start watching and you have to see not only how it's going to end, but who's going to make it out alive. Not that you really care, but you wonder whose really deemed worthy of surviving said trainwreck. It is ludicrous, ridiculous, and absurd...but it's amusing as hell.
How ridiculous is it? Let's see...strippers being turned into zombies and becoming super strippers, zombies being sexy, having the most stereotypical Mexican janitor...ever, the casts biggest names being Jenna Jameson and Robert Englund, special effects you'd find in Xena: Warrior Princess, a Christian stripping for her nanna, Jenna Jameson shooting ping pong balls and pool balls out her...well...I'll let you see that for yourself, angry dragons, and foamy chewbaccas...the list goes on and on. I'm sure I missed so many more. The sad thing is that despite being the cheesiest of cheese and being as bad as it is, there's still a few good things buried under the cheese. It's kind of like an enchilada made with cheap cheese. All the cheap stuff is on the outside, but there's some good stuff on the inside. The most obvious being that there's a lot of nudity in this, which is good because it'll probably be one of the only things that'll keep anyone watching. Robert Englund's over the top performance as the germophobic strip club owner is pretty memorable. Also, the make-up effects are surprisingly good at times. The special effects are horrid, but the make-up is actually better than you think it'd be.
In a film as ridiculously cheesy as this, I can't blame anyone if they turn it off before it reaches the half hour mark. The thing is though if you stick with it, it's actually enjoyable because it's so bad. It's cheesy, it's amusing, the acting is so bad that you'll be quoting it for days, the plot is pointless, and it even has a weak attempt at a twist in the ending! My point is that it's a bad film and I'm not defending it, but if you manage to sit through the whole thing...you may find yourself enjoying parts of it like I did.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Voice of the Elders in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Voice of the Elders by Greg Ripley is a very well written book that anyone who has a strong connection with earth and nature would be drawn to right away. This is well received as the book puts a lot of focus on the harder topics of what we face with global warming and as a race if we do not start thinking about sustainability as a complete way of life. It also brings to light the idea that even if sustainability is the best for the planet as whole companies such as big oil and nuclear power may not be all that interested because it takes profit away from them, showing just how harmful human greed can be.
The book also mentions many aspects from different religions and cultures, along with their moral views. Christian theology is even mentioned in the same paragraph as the threefold version of the Golden Rule which many would attribute to the Pagans or more specifically the religion of Wicca. However, a lot of talk in the book revolves around Chinese Daoism and somewhat in-depth at that. This lost me at a few different places but not for long as the ideas were also explained fairly well. I believe the average reader should be able to at least the get gist of what is being said during the conversations.
The basic idea of the book is that the Earth is in major trouble. As humans, our greed and lack of concern for our environment is killing our planet as it is already too late to reverse these effects unless we do something big really quick. A meeting is being held at the United Nations to address these concerns and that is where the reader first meets the main character Rohini. It is also where the Elders are first introduced into the story. Without giving too much away to the interested reader I feel like I can safely say that the Elders tell the World Leaders about what can be done to save the Earth and propose a plan where the Earth will send ambassadors to the world of the Elders.
Rohini is chosen to be one of these ambassadors and is brought before the world on TV when all of those selected to be ambassadors are introduced. This is when trouble starts, those against the Elders and the sustainability programs launch their first direct attack and kill most of the ambassadors and the President forcing Rohini, her trainer Jane, and Jane’s friend Guangming into hiding as suspects while waiting for their names to be cleared.
Overall the book is very well written and I failed to find any major editorial flaws in it. Still, I rate this book to be 2 out of 4 stars. This is because while I loved seeing Rohini grow spiritually and increase her personal connection with the Earth I found the book lacking. The last five-chapter or so felt rushed like Greg Ripley got bored or wasn’t sure how to pull everything together. I guess more of what I am trying to say is with how amazingly detailed the rest of the book was the end felt haphazardly thrown together. Now if this were the first in a series I would change my rating to a 3 providing that a few things got explained better such as who exactly the “Others” are (not going to say anything more about them without risking a spoiler) and what happens with the Earth and the Elders.
The book also mentions many aspects from different religions and cultures, along with their moral views. Christian theology is even mentioned in the same paragraph as the threefold version of the Golden Rule which many would attribute to the Pagans or more specifically the religion of Wicca. However, a lot of talk in the book revolves around Chinese Daoism and somewhat in-depth at that. This lost me at a few different places but not for long as the ideas were also explained fairly well. I believe the average reader should be able to at least the get gist of what is being said during the conversations.
The basic idea of the book is that the Earth is in major trouble. As humans, our greed and lack of concern for our environment is killing our planet as it is already too late to reverse these effects unless we do something big really quick. A meeting is being held at the United Nations to address these concerns and that is where the reader first meets the main character Rohini. It is also where the Elders are first introduced into the story. Without giving too much away to the interested reader I feel like I can safely say that the Elders tell the World Leaders about what can be done to save the Earth and propose a plan where the Earth will send ambassadors to the world of the Elders.
Rohini is chosen to be one of these ambassadors and is brought before the world on TV when all of those selected to be ambassadors are introduced. This is when trouble starts, those against the Elders and the sustainability programs launch their first direct attack and kill most of the ambassadors and the President forcing Rohini, her trainer Jane, and Jane’s friend Guangming into hiding as suspects while waiting for their names to be cleared.
Overall the book is very well written and I failed to find any major editorial flaws in it. Still, I rate this book to be 2 out of 4 stars. This is because while I loved seeing Rohini grow spiritually and increase her personal connection with the Earth I found the book lacking. The last five-chapter or so felt rushed like Greg Ripley got bored or wasn’t sure how to pull everything together. I guess more of what I am trying to say is with how amazingly detailed the rest of the book was the end felt haphazardly thrown together. Now if this were the first in a series I would change my rating to a 3 providing that a few things got explained better such as who exactly the “Others” are (not going to say anything more about them without risking a spoiler) and what happens with the Earth and the Elders.
Louise (64 KP) rated Furiously Happy in Books
Jul 2, 2018
So! where do I start! hmmmm....
This a non-fiction memoir about a woman, Jenny Lawson who suffers from mental illness, but not just one she has a whole mixed bag of mental health problems, Jenny suffers from depression, anxiety, insomnia, ADD and others.
This is her memoir of how she copes with mental health and what is like to live with these debilitating illnesses. The book is told in several short stories of Jenny's life, there are also pictures added in several of the chapters.(proof that these things really happened).
Her husband Victor is a saint that's all I can say, Jenny is crazy but in a good way crazy, she just talks about the most random things ever, but this a symptom of anxiety you over think things and you can tell by her writing.
This book is very funny, and Jenny isn't bothered about the stigma that is still attached to mental health, she is just being herself which is so refreshing.
I never heard of Jenny Lawson when I requested this book, I was more drawn to the synopsis and the amazing raccoon on the front cover. Jenny is a taxidermist's daughter and has a lot of love for stuffed animals which is clear in the book and shown with pictures.
I really could relate to Jenny as I suffer from depression and anxiety, I knew where she was coming from and when she was explaining they symptoms, I was like yes, I get that too! The book is very funny in places, but there are parts which I think are just silly!
My favourite part of the book has to be when she is trying to convinve Victor to get another cat so she can call it the 'President', her ideas are very witty and weird - i mean who thinks of stuff like this.
Whilst this book was good and funny, I was wanting her to be a bit more serious in some parts. I wanted to know how she really felt without trying to make it humorous. And yeah I know it's a serious topic and she is trying to make it light-hearted but I feel that maybe she is still holding back on what she really wants to say.
There is a trigger warning for this book, it does discuss self harm and suicide, so if you are easily offended I would not suggest it for you. Also there is a lot of swearing/cussing.
This is Jenny's second book, first being Let's pretend this never happened and also she has her own blog called the bloggess which I will be following.
I would recommend this book for anyone suffering from mental illness or has a family member/friends that does.
I rated this book 3.5 stars out of 5.
For more of my reviews please check out www.louiselovesbooks.wordpress.com
This a non-fiction memoir about a woman, Jenny Lawson who suffers from mental illness, but not just one she has a whole mixed bag of mental health problems, Jenny suffers from depression, anxiety, insomnia, ADD and others.
This is her memoir of how she copes with mental health and what is like to live with these debilitating illnesses. The book is told in several short stories of Jenny's life, there are also pictures added in several of the chapters.(proof that these things really happened).
Her husband Victor is a saint that's all I can say, Jenny is crazy but in a good way crazy, she just talks about the most random things ever, but this a symptom of anxiety you over think things and you can tell by her writing.
This book is very funny, and Jenny isn't bothered about the stigma that is still attached to mental health, she is just being herself which is so refreshing.
I never heard of Jenny Lawson when I requested this book, I was more drawn to the synopsis and the amazing raccoon on the front cover. Jenny is a taxidermist's daughter and has a lot of love for stuffed animals which is clear in the book and shown with pictures.
I really could relate to Jenny as I suffer from depression and anxiety, I knew where she was coming from and when she was explaining they symptoms, I was like yes, I get that too! The book is very funny in places, but there are parts which I think are just silly!
My favourite part of the book has to be when she is trying to convinve Victor to get another cat so she can call it the 'President', her ideas are very witty and weird - i mean who thinks of stuff like this.
Whilst this book was good and funny, I was wanting her to be a bit more serious in some parts. I wanted to know how she really felt without trying to make it humorous. And yeah I know it's a serious topic and she is trying to make it light-hearted but I feel that maybe she is still holding back on what she really wants to say.
There is a trigger warning for this book, it does discuss self harm and suicide, so if you are easily offended I would not suggest it for you. Also there is a lot of swearing/cussing.
This is Jenny's second book, first being Let's pretend this never happened and also she has her own blog called the bloggess which I will be following.
I would recommend this book for anyone suffering from mental illness or has a family member/friends that does.
I rated this book 3.5 stars out of 5.
For more of my reviews please check out www.louiselovesbooks.wordpress.com
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Jul 4, 2020
Honestly, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to recite what actually happens either Olympus Has Fallen or London Has Fallen, then I'd be shit out of luck. The recent third entry Angel Has Fallen will be no different in a week or two...
It's not awful (some of the action is fairly entertaining) but it's so by the numbers and boring. Jesus Christ, even Nick Nolte doing his by-now-expected-crazy-old-guy schtick is tiresome after roughly 5 seconds.
The plot revolves around Gerard Butler's Mike Banning, who is high up in the White Houses security detail, being framed for an assassination attempt on the President (Morgan Freeman). He is then chased down by the FBI, whilst he tries to figure out who is actually behind it, take them down, and clear his name.
I don't even need to spoil who the bad guys are because it's painfully obvious from the precise second we meet them.
I don't mind Gerard Butler by any means, but he seems to be phoning it in at this point, as he goes through the motions and runs through a gauntlet of action movie cliches - including but not limited to:
- a dramatic dimly lit and gun heavy opening scene that is blatantly a training excercise
- the hero throwing down an effective weapon to face of with the villain in hand to hand
- the hero walking away from an important family conversation at a pivotal moment to go and do hero stuff
- Danny Huston playing a smug arsehole
- A political sub plot involving Russia that doesn't actually go anywhere
Etc, etc.
I, like most people, love a good bit of Morgan Freeman, but unfortunately, they did a Leia on him and just had him in a coma for most of the film, yaaaaay. Jada Pinkett-Smith is in here somewhere as well, but I can't even remember what happens to her.
Just to top it all off, some of the effects work in this is terrible by any standard, but considering it's a big budget action film, it's pretty embarrassing.
I mean, I can be a miserable bastard sometimes, and I appreciate that maybe I'm railing too hard on a film that should just be a dumb popcorn film, but honestly, Angel Has Fallen feels like the result of someone forcing a bot to sit through the first two, and then produce a script for a sequel.
It's not awful (some of the action is fairly entertaining) but it's so by the numbers and boring. Jesus Christ, even Nick Nolte doing his by-now-expected-crazy-old-guy schtick is tiresome after roughly 5 seconds.
The plot revolves around Gerard Butler's Mike Banning, who is high up in the White Houses security detail, being framed for an assassination attempt on the President (Morgan Freeman). He is then chased down by the FBI, whilst he tries to figure out who is actually behind it, take them down, and clear his name.
I don't even need to spoil who the bad guys are because it's painfully obvious from the precise second we meet them.
I don't mind Gerard Butler by any means, but he seems to be phoning it in at this point, as he goes through the motions and runs through a gauntlet of action movie cliches - including but not limited to:
- a dramatic dimly lit and gun heavy opening scene that is blatantly a training excercise
- the hero throwing down an effective weapon to face of with the villain in hand to hand
- the hero walking away from an important family conversation at a pivotal moment to go and do hero stuff
- Danny Huston playing a smug arsehole
- A political sub plot involving Russia that doesn't actually go anywhere
Etc, etc.
I, like most people, love a good bit of Morgan Freeman, but unfortunately, they did a Leia on him and just had him in a coma for most of the film, yaaaaay. Jada Pinkett-Smith is in here somewhere as well, but I can't even remember what happens to her.
Just to top it all off, some of the effects work in this is terrible by any standard, but considering it's a big budget action film, it's pretty embarrassing.
I mean, I can be a miserable bastard sometimes, and I appreciate that maybe I'm railing too hard on a film that should just be a dumb popcorn film, but honestly, Angel Has Fallen feels like the result of someone forcing a bot to sit through the first two, and then produce a script for a sequel.
BookwormLea (3034 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Jun 17, 2020 (Updated Jun 17, 2020)
My favourite series.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I've read this book probably about 7 times.... I adore this series. The world that Collins has created is fantastically unique. As horrible as it seems, I would have loved to experience it in real life. It's such a rollercoaster of emotions and I really didn't want it to end. I'm so glad this is a trilogy. And I'm only writing this now because I reread the series in preparation for the newly released Prequel book, A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes.
In a dystopian future, the city of Panem is split into 12 Districts and a beautiful Capitol. Ran by the horror that is President Snow. Katniss Everdeen is our heroine from the mining District 12. In a tournament known as the Hunger Games, 2 contestants from each district, one male and one female, are chosen at random to compete to the death in an arena. This book is set during the 74th annual Hunger Games. It is also the first year Katniss' younger sister Primrose, can be entered. Unlucky as she is, her name is drawn. Katniss heroically (or stupidly) volunteers asks tribute. The first tribute for District 12. She is to train with neighbour Peeta, the bakers son. Their trainer is District 12s only past winner, Haymitch. A rude, drunk, cynical man who isn't much good for anything. They are brought to the Capitol, which is home to the wealthiest of Panem, and are literally paraded through the city dressed in garments that represent their District. Thank you Cinna, their personal stylist, for the fabulous flaming costumes!
After an extensive training sessions, they begin the games. Watched by every citizen in Panem, bet on and laughed at. The wealthy citizens can become sponsors and send the tributes things to help, but only if you are worth it.
As you imagine, blood, gore and death. In the final moments, we find Peeta and Katniss still alive, along with District 1 (the favourite) Cato. Eventually, they leave the arena, despite only one person having supposed to win. Brought out to be celebrated for not dying. To move into the Victor's Village in District 12 with their families.
In a dystopian future, the city of Panem is split into 12 Districts and a beautiful Capitol. Ran by the horror that is President Snow. Katniss Everdeen is our heroine from the mining District 12. In a tournament known as the Hunger Games, 2 contestants from each district, one male and one female, are chosen at random to compete to the death in an arena. This book is set during the 74th annual Hunger Games. It is also the first year Katniss' younger sister Primrose, can be entered. Unlucky as she is, her name is drawn. Katniss heroically (or stupidly) volunteers asks tribute. The first tribute for District 12. She is to train with neighbour Peeta, the bakers son. Their trainer is District 12s only past winner, Haymitch. A rude, drunk, cynical man who isn't much good for anything. They are brought to the Capitol, which is home to the wealthiest of Panem, and are literally paraded through the city dressed in garments that represent their District. Thank you Cinna, their personal stylist, for the fabulous flaming costumes!
After an extensive training sessions, they begin the games. Watched by every citizen in Panem, bet on and laughed at. The wealthy citizens can become sponsors and send the tributes things to help, but only if you are worth it.
As you imagine, blood, gore and death. In the final moments, we find Peeta and Katniss still alive, along with District 1 (the favourite) Cato. Eventually, they leave the arena, despite only one person having supposed to win. Brought out to be celebrated for not dying. To move into the Victor's Village in District 12 with their families.
