Search
Search results
Hey Duggee: We Love Animals
Games and Education
App
**** As seen on Nick Jr. **** Duggee's back and this time he's awarding the We Love Animals Badge....
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
Curiosity Quills: Chronology
Richard Roberts, Tony Healey, Piers Anthony, J.R. Rain, Jordan Elizabeth Mierek, James Wymore, Stan Swanson, Darin Kennedy , Julie Frost , Andrew Buckley , J.P. Moynahan, B. C. Johnson, J. P. Sloan, Andrew J. Rausch, Katie Young , Scott Nicholson, Wilbert Stanton, Tara Tyler, Mark W. Woodring, J. E. Anckorn, Nathan L. Yocum, G. Miki Hayden, Matthew S. Cox and Matthew Graybosch
6.0
Rate It
Book
It's time... for time! Embark on a literary journey through the ages with Curiosity Quills Press in...
Darren (1599 KP) rated 22 Jump Street (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 22 Jump Street starts by filling us in on what happened in the last film like a previous episode. We watch Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Tatum) as they try take down a criminal The Ghost (Stormare) but much like the first one, things go slightly wrong. Jenko and Schmidt have to go to college undercover to uncover the latest drug craze. The two go through the opposite direction to the previous film and we get to see how they react to their reverse situations.
team
22 Jump Street uses the first ten minutes poking fun at the idea of a sequel, including talking about doubling the budget, how they got lucky first time after everyone thought the idea would fail. It also forced to tell the same story as well as actually having an upgraded office called 22 Jump Street with 23 Jump Street opening next door. We continue to get plenty of ‘it is a sequel’ jokes through the film so much so that it feels like a glorified extended version of a television show. it is full of jokes, action and personally I think the story is so easy to watch and laugh along with it could be the best I have seen in years. (9/10)
Actor Review
Jonah Hill: Schmidt big guy to the comedy double act who ends up going through the same problems of not fitting in as Jenko did through the first film. Schmidt gets romantically involved with a Maya a girl on campus who turns out to be Captain Dickson’s daughter. Jonah gives a great performance showing that he really has great comical timing. (9/10)
scmidt
Channing Tatum: Jenko muscle of the comedy double act who finds himself in college finally getting a chance to fit in much like his time through high school first time. He gets a chance to live a different life which he never got a chance too with his connection with the football team, but his age will catch up with him. Channing gives a great performance showing he is just a muscle man he has comic timing too. (9/10)
channing
Peter Stormare: The Ghost drug deal the couple are after at first before he escapes, only to get into battle with him again once they uncover the truth about the supply at the college. Peter gives a solid performance giving his typical villain role. (7/10)
Wyatt Russell: Zook student that becomes good friends with Jenko, helping him get into the good with the sports team. The clues point to Zook but after thinking about the clues they realize they are reading things incorrectly about the fun loving footballer. Wyatt gives a good performance who has good chemistry with Channing. (8/10)
Amber Stevens: Maya student who befriends Schmidt and takes him down the calmer side of the college experience. After we are told she is the daughter of the Captain the comedy level raises. Amber gives a solid supporting performance. (6/10)
maya
Support Cast: 22 Jump Street has a whole host of supporting characters who all give extra laughs, be in the Captain and his protection of his daughter or the jock who wants to take down the goal posts. They all add laughs the main characters work with.
Director Review: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller – Phil & Christopher direct this film almost perfectly to take the piss out of the idea it is a sequel and that the first one was successful after many other television shows turned films have bombed. (9/10)
Action: 22 Jump Street has good action with chases trying not to break anything while the villains smash everything. (8/10)
Comedy: 22 Jump Street is one of the best comedies I have seen in years, it offers plenty of puns that take the piss out of the idea of it being a sequel. (10/10)
Crime: 22 Jump Street focuses a lot of trying to solve the crime while undercover which works nicely for it. (8/10)
Chemistry: 22 Jump Street has some great chemistry between Jonah and Channing who create one of the best comedy duos in buddy cop history. (10/10)
Settings: 22 Jump Street moves to college which works as the actors are older and it pokes fun that they would have looked way too old for high school. (9/10)
Suggestion: 22 Jump Street is a must watch, you don’t even need to see the first one as it recaps you with a previously at the start. (Watch)
Best Part in 22 Jump Street: Chase for the campus.car
Worst Part in 22 Jump Street: I would say the supporting characters are slightly too stereotyped.
Best Action Scene In 22 Jump Street: Chase through the campus.
Funniest Scene in 22 Jump Street: The moment Captain Dickson finds out about Schmidt and his daughter.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Yeah could have one.
Post Credits Scene: Jokes about what sequels could be in the future.
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $331 Million
Budget: $50 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 52 Minutes
Tagline: These undercover cops are going to party like it’s their job
Overall: A Must Watch Comedy
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/22/22-jump-street-2014/
team
22 Jump Street uses the first ten minutes poking fun at the idea of a sequel, including talking about doubling the budget, how they got lucky first time after everyone thought the idea would fail. It also forced to tell the same story as well as actually having an upgraded office called 22 Jump Street with 23 Jump Street opening next door. We continue to get plenty of ‘it is a sequel’ jokes through the film so much so that it feels like a glorified extended version of a television show. it is full of jokes, action and personally I think the story is so easy to watch and laugh along with it could be the best I have seen in years. (9/10)
Actor Review
Jonah Hill: Schmidt big guy to the comedy double act who ends up going through the same problems of not fitting in as Jenko did through the first film. Schmidt gets romantically involved with a Maya a girl on campus who turns out to be Captain Dickson’s daughter. Jonah gives a great performance showing that he really has great comical timing. (9/10)
scmidt
Channing Tatum: Jenko muscle of the comedy double act who finds himself in college finally getting a chance to fit in much like his time through high school first time. He gets a chance to live a different life which he never got a chance too with his connection with the football team, but his age will catch up with him. Channing gives a great performance showing he is just a muscle man he has comic timing too. (9/10)
channing
Peter Stormare: The Ghost drug deal the couple are after at first before he escapes, only to get into battle with him again once they uncover the truth about the supply at the college. Peter gives a solid performance giving his typical villain role. (7/10)
Wyatt Russell: Zook student that becomes good friends with Jenko, helping him get into the good with the sports team. The clues point to Zook but after thinking about the clues they realize they are reading things incorrectly about the fun loving footballer. Wyatt gives a good performance who has good chemistry with Channing. (8/10)
Amber Stevens: Maya student who befriends Schmidt and takes him down the calmer side of the college experience. After we are told she is the daughter of the Captain the comedy level raises. Amber gives a solid supporting performance. (6/10)
maya
Support Cast: 22 Jump Street has a whole host of supporting characters who all give extra laughs, be in the Captain and his protection of his daughter or the jock who wants to take down the goal posts. They all add laughs the main characters work with.
Director Review: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller – Phil & Christopher direct this film almost perfectly to take the piss out of the idea it is a sequel and that the first one was successful after many other television shows turned films have bombed. (9/10)
Action: 22 Jump Street has good action with chases trying not to break anything while the villains smash everything. (8/10)
Comedy: 22 Jump Street is one of the best comedies I have seen in years, it offers plenty of puns that take the piss out of the idea of it being a sequel. (10/10)
Crime: 22 Jump Street focuses a lot of trying to solve the crime while undercover which works nicely for it. (8/10)
Chemistry: 22 Jump Street has some great chemistry between Jonah and Channing who create one of the best comedy duos in buddy cop history. (10/10)
Settings: 22 Jump Street moves to college which works as the actors are older and it pokes fun that they would have looked way too old for high school. (9/10)
Suggestion: 22 Jump Street is a must watch, you don’t even need to see the first one as it recaps you with a previously at the start. (Watch)
Best Part in 22 Jump Street: Chase for the campus.car
Worst Part in 22 Jump Street: I would say the supporting characters are slightly too stereotyped.
Best Action Scene In 22 Jump Street: Chase through the campus.
Funniest Scene in 22 Jump Street: The moment Captain Dickson finds out about Schmidt and his daughter.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Yeah could have one.
Post Credits Scene: Jokes about what sequels could be in the future.
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $331 Million
Budget: $50 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 52 Minutes
Tagline: These undercover cops are going to party like it’s their job
Overall: A Must Watch Comedy
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/22/22-jump-street-2014/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Akira (1988) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: In the aftermath of World War III in 1988 Tokyo has had to build again and 31 years later in the 2019 New-Tokyo is on the edge of the next war. We follow Kaneda and school student the leader of a biker gang including Tetsuo and Kei. When Tetsuo ends up involved in an accident after getting distracted by Takashi a young boy with certain abilities he gets taken by the government.
When Colonel Shikishima is running an operation to find Akira the cause of the previous World War the three children Takashi, Kiyoko and Masaru must prevent this happening while Tetsuo ends up becoming power and a threat to the whole city. Kaneda teams up with the resistance against the government through Kei and we follow as every side comes to a battle that will need to stop a future war.
Akira reaches levels most action films could never imagine with the number of character in the overall battle each having their own motives behind being involved. The look at what a future could have been all looks great and coming from a graphic novel everything works for what the film is trying to achieve. The violence is unlike anything you would have seen in an animated film which helps shows the world we will be entering.
Character Review
Kaneda: Kaneda is the leader of the school aged biker gang who drives the iconic red bike, when one of his gang is kidnapped by the government he joins the resistance against the government movement. Once we see what happens with his friend Tetsuo he must fight his old friend to stop the next World War happen. Kaneda is a great leading character that even after nearly 30 years is still one of the most iconic in all of animated film history.kaneda
Tetsuo: Tetsuo is a member of Kaneda’s biker gang but after he has an accident the government takes his away to use in their latest experiments. What happens to Tetsuo leads him to become a threat to the city as he searches for Akira a threat not just to Neo-Tokyo but the world. Tetsuo starts of as just a member of the gang wanting to become more and once he has the powers he learns he isn’t ready to have the leadership when he ends up turning on the people he once considered friends, a great villainous character without being a true villain.tetsuo
Kei: Kei is a member of the resistance that Kaneda rescues from the police before joining forces Kaneda to stop the government and rescue Tetsuo from bring Akira back from the dead. Kei is the potential romantic angle for Kaneda who is also as tough as they come, she also has a connection to the children with the abilities.kei
Support Characters: Akira has a large amount of supporting characters which include Kaneda’s gang who all stick with him when he needs to fight. We also have the resistance who help Kei and Kaneda achieve the battle. We have the three kids who have to abilities in their own right that together making the deadly but also fighting for the right thing. We also have one last group and that is the government who want to bring the Akira power back as a weapon.
Director Review: Katsuhiro Otomo – Katsuhiro brings us his own graphic novel to the bring screen which offers one of the most entertain and well developed characters in recent film.
Action: Akira has action from start to finish, we have a motorbike chase to open the film, constant chases to either reach someone or escape from them and the final fight oh my god what a brilliant conclusion.
Animation: Akira has simply brilliant looking animation that help bring the action to life and once more I refer to the final scene which is just breathtaking visual moment.
Sci-Fi: Akira brings us into a future world where the world has been through another World War and had to rebuild in a new future with the Neo-Tokyo.
Settings: Akira creates a futuristic looking world that helps us identify just how far into the future we have gone with the story.
Suggestion: Akira is one for all the animated fans to see because it really is a visual treat with a stunning story that will stick with you. (Animated Fans Watch)
Best Part: The final battle which will leave your jaw dropped with how amazing it looks.
Worst Part: I would say this is going to be too violent for certain animated fans.
Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle is easily the best scene in the whole film and could easily be the best one in action animated films.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Signal Traced to Tokyo!
Trivia: The movie takes place in 2019 and depicts Neo-Tokyo creating a new Olympic stadium. Coincidentally, Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Summer Olympics.
Overall: Akira really is one of the best animated film that ever got made that will still be talked about for years to come.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/09/30/akira-1988/
When Colonel Shikishima is running an operation to find Akira the cause of the previous World War the three children Takashi, Kiyoko and Masaru must prevent this happening while Tetsuo ends up becoming power and a threat to the whole city. Kaneda teams up with the resistance against the government through Kei and we follow as every side comes to a battle that will need to stop a future war.
Akira reaches levels most action films could never imagine with the number of character in the overall battle each having their own motives behind being involved. The look at what a future could have been all looks great and coming from a graphic novel everything works for what the film is trying to achieve. The violence is unlike anything you would have seen in an animated film which helps shows the world we will be entering.
Character Review
Kaneda: Kaneda is the leader of the school aged biker gang who drives the iconic red bike, when one of his gang is kidnapped by the government he joins the resistance against the government movement. Once we see what happens with his friend Tetsuo he must fight his old friend to stop the next World War happen. Kaneda is a great leading character that even after nearly 30 years is still one of the most iconic in all of animated film history.kaneda
Tetsuo: Tetsuo is a member of Kaneda’s biker gang but after he has an accident the government takes his away to use in their latest experiments. What happens to Tetsuo leads him to become a threat to the city as he searches for Akira a threat not just to Neo-Tokyo but the world. Tetsuo starts of as just a member of the gang wanting to become more and once he has the powers he learns he isn’t ready to have the leadership when he ends up turning on the people he once considered friends, a great villainous character without being a true villain.tetsuo
Kei: Kei is a member of the resistance that Kaneda rescues from the police before joining forces Kaneda to stop the government and rescue Tetsuo from bring Akira back from the dead. Kei is the potential romantic angle for Kaneda who is also as tough as they come, she also has a connection to the children with the abilities.kei
Support Characters: Akira has a large amount of supporting characters which include Kaneda’s gang who all stick with him when he needs to fight. We also have the resistance who help Kei and Kaneda achieve the battle. We have the three kids who have to abilities in their own right that together making the deadly but also fighting for the right thing. We also have one last group and that is the government who want to bring the Akira power back as a weapon.
Director Review: Katsuhiro Otomo – Katsuhiro brings us his own graphic novel to the bring screen which offers one of the most entertain and well developed characters in recent film.
Action: Akira has action from start to finish, we have a motorbike chase to open the film, constant chases to either reach someone or escape from them and the final fight oh my god what a brilliant conclusion.
Animation: Akira has simply brilliant looking animation that help bring the action to life and once more I refer to the final scene which is just breathtaking visual moment.
Sci-Fi: Akira brings us into a future world where the world has been through another World War and had to rebuild in a new future with the Neo-Tokyo.
Settings: Akira creates a futuristic looking world that helps us identify just how far into the future we have gone with the story.
Suggestion: Akira is one for all the animated fans to see because it really is a visual treat with a stunning story that will stick with you. (Animated Fans Watch)
Best Part: The final battle which will leave your jaw dropped with how amazing it looks.
Worst Part: I would say this is going to be too violent for certain animated fans.
Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle is easily the best scene in the whole film and could easily be the best one in action animated films.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Signal Traced to Tokyo!
Trivia: The movie takes place in 2019 and depicts Neo-Tokyo creating a new Olympic stadium. Coincidentally, Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Summer Olympics.
Overall: Akira really is one of the best animated film that ever got made that will still be talked about for years to come.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/09/30/akira-1988/
IT… didn’t really float my boat.
IT is based on the Stephen King novel, and tells the disturbing recurring events that happen within the town of Derry in Maine. Kids keep disappearing and sightings of a spooky clown, other visitations and red balloons occur. A group of bullied high school kids – one directly impacted by the disappearances – work to get to the bottom of the supernatural goings on. (Fortunately they don’t have a dog called Scooby).
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated In The Shadow of Blackbirds in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.