Search
BookInspector (124 KP) rated On the Bright Side in Books
Sep 24, 2020
More reviews can be found on https://bbookinspector.wordpress.com
This is the second diary of Mr H. Groen, where he shares with the reader a year of his life in one of Amsterdam’s elderly care homes, and I really found it fascinating. I didn’t have the chance to read his first diary, however, I found that this book can be easily understood by a first-time reader like myself because Hendrik does a great job by introducing and describing all the residents of his care home.
The main character in this book is, of course, Hendrik Groen, and the whole book was told from his perspective. I found him absolutely adorable. He is incredibly bright minded, funny, and interesting personality. I really enjoyed the way he introduced all his friends and nemesis, his and Everet’s (best friend) sarcastic thoughts and actions got me laughing out loud many times. I liked the way Hendrik showed through his diary, that elderly care homes can be an actually fun place to be, where you are occupied and never alone. And when I will grow old I would not mind spending my old days in such establishment.
Even though this book was from author’s perspective, Hendrik shared many events which he saw on TV or read it in papers throughout the year of 2015, and I loved the way he incorporated different resident’s thoughts about those events. My most favourite thing in this book was the Old-But-Not-Dead club and their members. Even though they hardly can walk, they still choose to explore life and it’s offerings, and it is just admirable. I think this book is very relatable to all the elderly because Groen is sharing not only good stuff and jokes, he is sharing the cruel reality as well. And I did like that a lot, it makes it more realistic and believable.
The writing style is easy to read and very witty, sarcastic and enjoyable. I had to twist my tongue a little bit while pronouncing the Dutch surnames, but that didn’t bother me much. The chapters are short and sweet and the book went quite quick for me. It has a lot of going on in every chapter, but sometimes my mind tended to wonder of, as it was a little bit monotonous sometimes. Hendrik ended this book with a very positive message and big hopes for his fiction novel, which I will be waiting impatiently for. So, to conclude, if your grandparents are still alive, you have to get them this book. I bet they would be able to relate and if not they would have a great laugh while reading it. I had an emotional rollercoaster while reading it, it made happy, pity, sad, excited, and It just made me respect our elderly more, because they all are different, unique and fascinating. I strongly recommend it to all as it is a perfect insight into our possible future. Enjoy 🙂
This is the second diary of Mr H. Groen, where he shares with the reader a year of his life in one of Amsterdam’s elderly care homes, and I really found it fascinating. I didn’t have the chance to read his first diary, however, I found that this book can be easily understood by a first-time reader like myself because Hendrik does a great job by introducing and describing all the residents of his care home.
The main character in this book is, of course, Hendrik Groen, and the whole book was told from his perspective. I found him absolutely adorable. He is incredibly bright minded, funny, and interesting personality. I really enjoyed the way he introduced all his friends and nemesis, his and Everet’s (best friend) sarcastic thoughts and actions got me laughing out loud many times. I liked the way Hendrik showed through his diary, that elderly care homes can be an actually fun place to be, where you are occupied and never alone. And when I will grow old I would not mind spending my old days in such establishment.
Even though this book was from author’s perspective, Hendrik shared many events which he saw on TV or read it in papers throughout the year of 2015, and I loved the way he incorporated different resident’s thoughts about those events. My most favourite thing in this book was the Old-But-Not-Dead club and their members. Even though they hardly can walk, they still choose to explore life and it’s offerings, and it is just admirable. I think this book is very relatable to all the elderly because Groen is sharing not only good stuff and jokes, he is sharing the cruel reality as well. And I did like that a lot, it makes it more realistic and believable.
The writing style is easy to read and very witty, sarcastic and enjoyable. I had to twist my tongue a little bit while pronouncing the Dutch surnames, but that didn’t bother me much. The chapters are short and sweet and the book went quite quick for me. It has a lot of going on in every chapter, but sometimes my mind tended to wonder of, as it was a little bit monotonous sometimes. Hendrik ended this book with a very positive message and big hopes for his fiction novel, which I will be waiting impatiently for. So, to conclude, if your grandparents are still alive, you have to get them this book. I bet they would be able to relate and if not they would have a great laugh while reading it. I had an emotional rollercoaster while reading it, it made happy, pity, sad, excited, and It just made me respect our elderly more, because they all are different, unique and fascinating. I strongly recommend it to all as it is a perfect insight into our possible future. Enjoy 🙂
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Addams Family (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Can anyone ever say the name of this film without finger snapping?
When their home life is dislodged by pitchfork-wielding townsfolk the Addams pack up their car and hit the road for a new beginning. They come across a mansion on a hill, it's creepy and it's kooky, mysterious and spooky... it's perfect for the Addams family.
Years of idyllic isolation fly by but the outside world is closer than ever. Wednesday is intrigued by the perils that lay beyond their gates and the family can no longer ignore their neighbours in the valley, their very perky neighbours who live in their little cookie cuttered dream houses below.
What's not to love about the madness of the Addams family? You can pretty much guarantee entertainment, and that's what you get from this film.
There's a gripe... there's always a gripe... so let me get it out of the way first. It annoys me more because it's accurate to the source material so I should love that, but modern adaptations have ruined me! Gomez Addams, he's not what you see when you think Gomez. I have been brainwashed by films and it annoys me. He is a perfect representation of the original cartoons by Charles Addams, he's still suave, sophisticated and playful like we know him to be, but he's no Raul Julia or John Astin.
On a similar note, when I heard Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron were playing Gomez and Morticia I was elated, imagine my disappointment to discover they were to be animated and not live action. You couldn't get better casting for a live action couple if you tried! Anyway, moving on.
The voice cast is littered with famous faces including Elsie Fisher of Eighth Grade fame and Bette Midler... BETTE MIDLER!! We've also got Allison Janney as out saccharine sweet villain, Janney has a knack for the villain roles and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
There's just one role I object to, and I found it to be an incredibly lazy decision on someone's part. Nick Kroll as Uncle Fester. While I understand the nice-but-dim style voice is perfect for Fester it has basically been recycled from Big Mouth's Coach Steve. There will be no real issues with this for the intended audience as Big Mouth comes in at a 15 compared to The Addams Family's more subtle PG, but as someone who's old enough to watch both, I was annoyed.
The artwork on this really does play a great homage to the cartoons and despite their age it works really well for a modern audience. The story also brings it nicely up to date with its reality TV slant and the perfect American dream town. There are lots of great touches throughout that amuse.
I understand that each new adaptation has to do its own thing, and I like how it brought an original story (of sorts) to us but I didn't feel like it took previous iterations of the characters into consideration... this is a daft thing to complain about too, I know that, but the Addams family are iconic. Wednesday has always been my spirit animal, but to see a rather lacklustre version here made me a little sad.
But, ultimately I still enjoyed my time watching it, I just don't think I'll be placing it higher up the ranking than any of the previous ghoulish outings.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-addams-family-movie-review.html
When their home life is dislodged by pitchfork-wielding townsfolk the Addams pack up their car and hit the road for a new beginning. They come across a mansion on a hill, it's creepy and it's kooky, mysterious and spooky... it's perfect for the Addams family.
Years of idyllic isolation fly by but the outside world is closer than ever. Wednesday is intrigued by the perils that lay beyond their gates and the family can no longer ignore their neighbours in the valley, their very perky neighbours who live in their little cookie cuttered dream houses below.
What's not to love about the madness of the Addams family? You can pretty much guarantee entertainment, and that's what you get from this film.
There's a gripe... there's always a gripe... so let me get it out of the way first. It annoys me more because it's accurate to the source material so I should love that, but modern adaptations have ruined me! Gomez Addams, he's not what you see when you think Gomez. I have been brainwashed by films and it annoys me. He is a perfect representation of the original cartoons by Charles Addams, he's still suave, sophisticated and playful like we know him to be, but he's no Raul Julia or John Astin.
On a similar note, when I heard Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron were playing Gomez and Morticia I was elated, imagine my disappointment to discover they were to be animated and not live action. You couldn't get better casting for a live action couple if you tried! Anyway, moving on.
The voice cast is littered with famous faces including Elsie Fisher of Eighth Grade fame and Bette Midler... BETTE MIDLER!! We've also got Allison Janney as out saccharine sweet villain, Janney has a knack for the villain roles and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
There's just one role I object to, and I found it to be an incredibly lazy decision on someone's part. Nick Kroll as Uncle Fester. While I understand the nice-but-dim style voice is perfect for Fester it has basically been recycled from Big Mouth's Coach Steve. There will be no real issues with this for the intended audience as Big Mouth comes in at a 15 compared to The Addams Family's more subtle PG, but as someone who's old enough to watch both, I was annoyed.
The artwork on this really does play a great homage to the cartoons and despite their age it works really well for a modern audience. The story also brings it nicely up to date with its reality TV slant and the perfect American dream town. There are lots of great touches throughout that amuse.
I understand that each new adaptation has to do its own thing, and I like how it brought an original story (of sorts) to us but I didn't feel like it took previous iterations of the characters into consideration... this is a daft thing to complain about too, I know that, but the Addams family are iconic. Wednesday has always been my spirit animal, but to see a rather lacklustre version here made me a little sad.
But, ultimately I still enjoyed my time watching it, I just don't think I'll be placing it higher up the ranking than any of the previous ghoulish outings.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-addams-family-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Chronicle (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Walking into the theatre to see Chronicle I was pretty excited. I had not heard much about this movie, in fact I’ll be honest here… I heard a small amount of info about two months ago and then it dropped off my radar before a trailer appeared last Sunday.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Little Miss Sunshine (2006) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Adorably heartwarming
Film #17 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Little Miss Sunshine
Little Miss Sunshine is a quirky gem of an indie film from 2006 that whilst a favourite of mine and Oscar nominated, has likely flown below the radar for many mainstream viewers. Which is a huge shame as this is such a fun, heartwarming and enjoyable film
Directed by husband and wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, Little Miss Sunshine follows the life of the dysfunctional Hoover family from New Mexico. The Hoovers are a family of unfortunates, misfits and losers, and probably one of the most realistic family depictions you’ll ever seen on screen outside of reality TV. There’s Sheryl (Toni Collette), the harassed mum who keeps her family fed on fast food. Dad Richard (Greg Kinnear) who’s trying to peddle a failing business that focuses on teaching others the secrets to success. Grandpa Edwin (Alan Arkin), an ageing hippie with a drug habit that has been kicked out of his retirement home. Sheryl’s brother Frank (Steve Carell), a gay man currently recovering from a suicide attempt after his partner left him. Son Duane (Paul Dano) who’s goal to get into flight school has led him to take a vow of silence. And finally there’s young daughter Olive (Abigail Breslin), who’s obsession with beauty pageants leads the family to take a cross country trip in an ageing VW van to help her compete in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant. Along the way, the family encounter a variety of mishaps and events that can potentially change their lives.
The Hoover family for the most part are ridiculously lovable and this is entirely down to their flaws that they are so likeable. Aside from Dad Richard who has a number of questionable ethics and morals that demean others, the family and their unique quirky personalities are the main reason why this film is so enjoyable. And the fact that the entire family are all brought together by young Olive across the span of the film makes this incredibly heartwarming. Olive is an underdog and being realistic, not the type of girl who you’d see in your typical American beauty pageant, but you still find yourself rooting for her all the same.
The cast are fantastic and while you can always rely on Toni Collette, Alan Arkin and Greg Kinnear, it’s Steve Carell and Abigail Breslin that shine brightest. Until this, I didn’t think Steve Carell could do serious and especially not a role that like. But he excels, bringing a sad, intelligent air to Frank and personally I think this is his best role to date. And then there’s Abigail Breslin, a 9 year old who steals the show and pulls the entire cast and film together. Together with a clever, well written script, the cast pull together a heartwarming and surprisingly funny film where emotions and family are key to an eventful road trip.
What I enjoyed the most about Little Miss Sunshine is that while the journey the family take is obviously most important, we do at least get the joy of seeing Olive enter the beauty pageant and this is such a fitting end to the story. There may be some slightly unbelievable or predictable events that occur across the journey (the police traffic stop being one), but ultimately you come out of this feeling incredibly satisfied and rather warm and fuzzy inside. One of the most enjoyable family road trip movies I’ve ever seen.
Little Miss Sunshine is a quirky gem of an indie film from 2006 that whilst a favourite of mine and Oscar nominated, has likely flown below the radar for many mainstream viewers. Which is a huge shame as this is such a fun, heartwarming and enjoyable film
Directed by husband and wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, Little Miss Sunshine follows the life of the dysfunctional Hoover family from New Mexico. The Hoovers are a family of unfortunates, misfits and losers, and probably one of the most realistic family depictions you’ll ever seen on screen outside of reality TV. There’s Sheryl (Toni Collette), the harassed mum who keeps her family fed on fast food. Dad Richard (Greg Kinnear) who’s trying to peddle a failing business that focuses on teaching others the secrets to success. Grandpa Edwin (Alan Arkin), an ageing hippie with a drug habit that has been kicked out of his retirement home. Sheryl’s brother Frank (Steve Carell), a gay man currently recovering from a suicide attempt after his partner left him. Son Duane (Paul Dano) who’s goal to get into flight school has led him to take a vow of silence. And finally there’s young daughter Olive (Abigail Breslin), who’s obsession with beauty pageants leads the family to take a cross country trip in an ageing VW van to help her compete in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant. Along the way, the family encounter a variety of mishaps and events that can potentially change their lives.
The Hoover family for the most part are ridiculously lovable and this is entirely down to their flaws that they are so likeable. Aside from Dad Richard who has a number of questionable ethics and morals that demean others, the family and their unique quirky personalities are the main reason why this film is so enjoyable. And the fact that the entire family are all brought together by young Olive across the span of the film makes this incredibly heartwarming. Olive is an underdog and being realistic, not the type of girl who you’d see in your typical American beauty pageant, but you still find yourself rooting for her all the same.
The cast are fantastic and while you can always rely on Toni Collette, Alan Arkin and Greg Kinnear, it’s Steve Carell and Abigail Breslin that shine brightest. Until this, I didn’t think Steve Carell could do serious and especially not a role that like. But he excels, bringing a sad, intelligent air to Frank and personally I think this is his best role to date. And then there’s Abigail Breslin, a 9 year old who steals the show and pulls the entire cast and film together. Together with a clever, well written script, the cast pull together a heartwarming and surprisingly funny film where emotions and family are key to an eventful road trip.
What I enjoyed the most about Little Miss Sunshine is that while the journey the family take is obviously most important, we do at least get the joy of seeing Olive enter the beauty pageant and this is such a fitting end to the story. There may be some slightly unbelievable or predictable events that occur across the journey (the police traffic stop being one), but ultimately you come out of this feeling incredibly satisfied and rather warm and fuzzy inside. One of the most enjoyable family road trip movies I’ve ever seen.
DocScanner 8
Productivity and Business
6.0
Rate It
App
** Over 1.500.000 Times Downloaded! ** ** The Original Scanner App ** ** Featured On App Store TV...
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director/Writer David Ayer (Street Kings, Training day) once again takes us into the world of the Los Angeles police department in the new movie End of Watch. Only this time rather than go in the corrupt police officer direction he has gone before, Ayer instead takes audiences on a honest and somewhat realistic emotionally charged ride along with two young and confident LAPD patrolmen.
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem in Video Games
Oct 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 28, 2019)
Psychological Warfare
Contains spoilers, click to show
Eternal Darkness- why does no one talk about this game. It is amazing, its horrorfying, terroryfying, spooky, creepy, thrilling, chilling and so much more. Plus it came out only for the gamecube, which is huge because nintendo doesnt put out or release alot of horror games. This, luigi's mansion and Resident Evil 4 were the big horror games for the gamecube. Maybe more came out, but those 3 were the big ones. Lets talk about this game, shall we....
The narrative of the game's story switches between two phases. The main phase focuses on a series of chapters in which players take control of a new character each time. The other phase acts as an intermission. The game boasts twelve playable characters, split between four distinct locations, and from different periods of time.
The story features multiple paths that can be taken. This choice not only determines which of the game's three other antagonists are aligned to the plot, but it also has subtle effects on the gameplay in chapters and intermission periods. Some changes include slight differences in puzzles and items, but most changes revolve around enemy placement, which will determine how the player engages them. This can even have an effect on the relative difficulty of the game in certain situations. Red tinted enemies, for example, are tougher than their counterparts.
The other distinctive gameplay aspect comes from "Sanity Effects", the game's standout concept that Nintendo patented. Upon beginning the game's second chapter, players must keep watch on a Sanity meter – a green bar which decreases when the player is spotted by an enemy. As the bar becomes low, subtle changes to the environment and random unusual events begin to occur, which reflect the character's slackening grip on reality.
While minor effects include a skewed camera angle, heads of statues following the character, and unsettling noises, stronger effects include bleeding on walls and ceilings, entering a room that is unrealistic before finding that the character never left the previous room, the character suddenly dying, and fourth wall breaking effect such as "To Be Continued" promotions for a "sequel", and simulated errors and anomalies of the TV or GameCube. While the latter does not affect gameplay, they can be misconstrued by the player as being actual technical malfunctions.
Lets talk about the plot/story....
The story of Eternal Darkness takes place over four principal locations which the game skips back and forth between. They include an underground temple complex called the Forbidden City, in Persia; a Khmer temple in Angkor Thom, Cambodia; Oublié Cathedral in Amiens, France (not to be confused with Amiens Cathedral); and the Roivas Family Estate in Rhode Island, which also leads to an ancient underground city named Ehn'gha beneath the mansion. Each time a location is visited, it is done so in a different time period. Spanning from 26 BC to 2000 AD. Almost half of which take place in the 20th century. Each different era and character offers a different periodic and personal perspective on the location.
The chapters found in the game are not discovered in chronological order. Instead, to make the narrative more dramatic, each chapter jumps around the timeline of the plot. However, despite the overall story skipping back and forth through time, the chapters do follow chronological order within their respective locations. This is because each setting also has its own contained story.
This game is so good, its epic, im surprised that not of people know about this game and heard about this game.
I highly reccordmend playing this game.
Lastly shout out to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review.
The narrative of the game's story switches between two phases. The main phase focuses on a series of chapters in which players take control of a new character each time. The other phase acts as an intermission. The game boasts twelve playable characters, split between four distinct locations, and from different periods of time.
The story features multiple paths that can be taken. This choice not only determines which of the game's three other antagonists are aligned to the plot, but it also has subtle effects on the gameplay in chapters and intermission periods. Some changes include slight differences in puzzles and items, but most changes revolve around enemy placement, which will determine how the player engages them. This can even have an effect on the relative difficulty of the game in certain situations. Red tinted enemies, for example, are tougher than their counterparts.
The other distinctive gameplay aspect comes from "Sanity Effects", the game's standout concept that Nintendo patented. Upon beginning the game's second chapter, players must keep watch on a Sanity meter – a green bar which decreases when the player is spotted by an enemy. As the bar becomes low, subtle changes to the environment and random unusual events begin to occur, which reflect the character's slackening grip on reality.
While minor effects include a skewed camera angle, heads of statues following the character, and unsettling noises, stronger effects include bleeding on walls and ceilings, entering a room that is unrealistic before finding that the character never left the previous room, the character suddenly dying, and fourth wall breaking effect such as "To Be Continued" promotions for a "sequel", and simulated errors and anomalies of the TV or GameCube. While the latter does not affect gameplay, they can be misconstrued by the player as being actual technical malfunctions.
Lets talk about the plot/story....
The story of Eternal Darkness takes place over four principal locations which the game skips back and forth between. They include an underground temple complex called the Forbidden City, in Persia; a Khmer temple in Angkor Thom, Cambodia; Oublié Cathedral in Amiens, France (not to be confused with Amiens Cathedral); and the Roivas Family Estate in Rhode Island, which also leads to an ancient underground city named Ehn'gha beneath the mansion. Each time a location is visited, it is done so in a different time period. Spanning from 26 BC to 2000 AD. Almost half of which take place in the 20th century. Each different era and character offers a different periodic and personal perspective on the location.
The chapters found in the game are not discovered in chronological order. Instead, to make the narrative more dramatic, each chapter jumps around the timeline of the plot. However, despite the overall story skipping back and forth through time, the chapters do follow chronological order within their respective locations. This is because each setting also has its own contained story.
This game is so good, its epic, im surprised that not of people know about this game and heard about this game.
I highly reccordmend playing this game.
Lastly shout out to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantasy Island (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2020
Michael Peña and Maggie Q in a film... I'm in. This was high up my watchlist even though Blumhouse and I don't always see eye to eye.
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html