Search
Search results
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Endangered Species Superheroes in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Endangered Species Superheroes by Dakota Duncan is a graphic novel that was not quite what I was expecting. Going off of the title I was expecting the story to be about a group of people that used abilities of endangered animals to be superheroes. That is not quite what this book actually is about. The actual concept of the book is much more interesting than the classic superhero book.
Lindsay lives with her grandfather who owns The Smiling Sloth Wildlife Sanctuary. Lindsey loves helping out at the sanctuary and has a very close relationship with many of the animals that live there. At the sanctuary she assists in taking care of some of the animals by drawing their blood for tests, feeding them, and checking their vitals. Many of these animals at the sanctuary bave been hurt in some way by human carelessness. Lindsay and the animals at the sanctuary have a secret that doesn't come out until Lindsay is attacked by a thug hired by Mace Zogan.
Mace at one point was working with Lindsay's grandfather at the sanctuary. He was arrested at some point for poisoning a bunch of sloths on purpose. Mace breaks out of jail and decides to get his revenge on Lindsay's grandfather by going after Lindsay herself. Mace kidnaps Lindsay and takes her back to his Lab on an island. Mace admits that her was trying to chemically alter animals at his lab to make them more useful to humans. With some help from a few unlikely sources Lindsay gets rescued and Mace is arrested once again.
This book teaches readers about animals and the problems that humans are causing because of all the pollution and trash that we leave laying. At one point it talks about a beach clean-up and the importance of trying to get more people involved. While the book dose have the classic chemicals
creating superheros and bad guys pretending to be police officers it even offers helpful information during a kidnapping. Lindsay calls her grandfather and keeps her phone safely hidden in her backpack when Mace grabs her so that she is able to tell details about what is going on to her grandfather by talking to Mace.
What I liked best about this is that I was surprised to find that it was not Lindsay who had superpowers. The artwork is also bright amd simple enough that I do not think it would distract from the story yet would still be interesting to young readers. The information packed in this book was both a posititve and a negative for me. I didn't really like how the entire thing was so informative that the dialogue felt forced at times. There were multiple times when the flow of the story was disrupted by the addition of extra facts.
The target readers for this book are school aged children, mainly those in early middle school. Elementary students might enjoy this book as well but I feel like it might actually be a bit too long to hold the attention of younger elementary students. I rate this book 2 out of 4 because it felt a little too boring for a children's book with how informative the story was. At the same time some children tend to be very interested in anything that has to so with animals so it might be more interesting than I give it credit for.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Lindsay lives with her grandfather who owns The Smiling Sloth Wildlife Sanctuary. Lindsey loves helping out at the sanctuary and has a very close relationship with many of the animals that live there. At the sanctuary she assists in taking care of some of the animals by drawing their blood for tests, feeding them, and checking their vitals. Many of these animals at the sanctuary bave been hurt in some way by human carelessness. Lindsay and the animals at the sanctuary have a secret that doesn't come out until Lindsay is attacked by a thug hired by Mace Zogan.
Mace at one point was working with Lindsay's grandfather at the sanctuary. He was arrested at some point for poisoning a bunch of sloths on purpose. Mace breaks out of jail and decides to get his revenge on Lindsay's grandfather by going after Lindsay herself. Mace kidnaps Lindsay and takes her back to his Lab on an island. Mace admits that her was trying to chemically alter animals at his lab to make them more useful to humans. With some help from a few unlikely sources Lindsay gets rescued and Mace is arrested once again.
This book teaches readers about animals and the problems that humans are causing because of all the pollution and trash that we leave laying. At one point it talks about a beach clean-up and the importance of trying to get more people involved. While the book dose have the classic chemicals
creating superheros and bad guys pretending to be police officers it even offers helpful information during a kidnapping. Lindsay calls her grandfather and keeps her phone safely hidden in her backpack when Mace grabs her so that she is able to tell details about what is going on to her grandfather by talking to Mace.
What I liked best about this is that I was surprised to find that it was not Lindsay who had superpowers. The artwork is also bright amd simple enough that I do not think it would distract from the story yet would still be interesting to young readers. The information packed in this book was both a posititve and a negative for me. I didn't really like how the entire thing was so informative that the dialogue felt forced at times. There were multiple times when the flow of the story was disrupted by the addition of extra facts.
The target readers for this book are school aged children, mainly those in early middle school. Elementary students might enjoy this book as well but I feel like it might actually be a bit too long to hold the attention of younger elementary students. I rate this book 2 out of 4 because it felt a little too boring for a children's book with how informative the story was. At the same time some children tend to be very interested in anything that has to so with animals so it might be more interesting than I give it credit for.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nobody (2021) in Movies
Jun 9, 2021
Bob Odenkirk (1 more)
A fun, adrenaline-fuelled script
What Kevin McAllister did once all grown up
The "Nobody" in question is Hutch Mansell (Bob Odenkirk) who lives a humdrum suburban life: a 9-to-5 managerial job at his in-laws manufacturing plant; distant wife (Connie Nielsen); two kids, Blake (Gage Munroe) and Abby (Paisley Cadorath); an elderly father (Christopher Lloyd) in a local care home. Basically, the Mansell's are all living the American dream, but all subject to the monotonous grind of that daily life for week after week. That all changes in the middle of the night after Hutch confronts two bungling burglars and - in the full gaze of his son - 'wimps out' on taking action. All the silent rage and embarrassment has to go somewhere, and it does - on a late night bus ride; an event that sets off a sequence of increasingly bloody encounters!
Positives:
- Bob Odenkirk is charismatically dull! His character could be compared with that of Christian Wolff in 2016's "The Accountant". But in that movie, Ben Affleck was just dull dull! Here Odenkirk brings his character to life in a truly wonderful and sparkly way.
- The movie is a hyper-violent but adrenaline-fuelled joy ride. There's a slight lull after the initial burglary, but then it's a downhill bobsleigh ride with no brakes from there to the end. It comes as no surprise that the writer, Derek Kolstad, is the guy behind the John Wick franchise. The script has moments of black comedy that made me laugh out loud a good few times.
- The editing here (by Evan Schiff and William Yeh) is very slick indeed, most noticeably so in the many fight scenes. The one on the bus could be pulled apart as a template for a film school lesson.
Negatives:
- I've very little to add here. Yes, it's a rather shallow story, but I found it a hugely entertaining rush of a movie. However the intensity of the violence will not be for everyone. The lady a few seats along from me had her hands over her eyes for at least 75% of the movie I reckon.
- I wasn't clear where the character played by RZA fitted into the mix. Having (post film) seen the cast list, I'm even more confused!
Additional notes:
- There is a post credit scene in this one, shortly into the end credits, so don't dive for the doors too quickly if you want to see it. That being said, it doesn't really make much sense (why are they doing this?) and it isn't particularly funny either. So if you did miss it, then don't sweat about it!
- This is a movie that I knew virtually nothing about on going into it. Which is the best way to see it. As such, it's worth NOT watching the trailer, and going in on that basis if you can.
Summary Thoughts on "Nobody": It's a pretty shallow plot.... but it's also bloody good fun! I expected this to follow the well worn road of classic "revenge" movies - like "Death Wish" or "Taken" - but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. A better comparison might be Michael Douglas's "Falling Down", but with the central character having more heart.
There are lots of nods to sequences from other movies in here: "Home Alone" (for obvious reasons!); "Patriot Games" and "The Equalizer" came to my mind. And the finale reminded me strongly of the anarchic chaos of 2016's "Free Fire".
Intellectual it ain't. But provided you can stomach the Tom and Jerry style violence, and suspend your belief at the punishment Hutch can take without hospital treatment, then "Nobody" ticks all the boxes for a fun night out at the flicks.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/09/nobody-what-kevin-mcallister-did-once-all-grown-up/. There's also a new Tiktok channel at onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Positives:
- Bob Odenkirk is charismatically dull! His character could be compared with that of Christian Wolff in 2016's "The Accountant". But in that movie, Ben Affleck was just dull dull! Here Odenkirk brings his character to life in a truly wonderful and sparkly way.
- The movie is a hyper-violent but adrenaline-fuelled joy ride. There's a slight lull after the initial burglary, but then it's a downhill bobsleigh ride with no brakes from there to the end. It comes as no surprise that the writer, Derek Kolstad, is the guy behind the John Wick franchise. The script has moments of black comedy that made me laugh out loud a good few times.
- The editing here (by Evan Schiff and William Yeh) is very slick indeed, most noticeably so in the many fight scenes. The one on the bus could be pulled apart as a template for a film school lesson.
Negatives:
- I've very little to add here. Yes, it's a rather shallow story, but I found it a hugely entertaining rush of a movie. However the intensity of the violence will not be for everyone. The lady a few seats along from me had her hands over her eyes for at least 75% of the movie I reckon.
- I wasn't clear where the character played by RZA fitted into the mix. Having (post film) seen the cast list, I'm even more confused!
Additional notes:
- There is a post credit scene in this one, shortly into the end credits, so don't dive for the doors too quickly if you want to see it. That being said, it doesn't really make much sense (why are they doing this?) and it isn't particularly funny either. So if you did miss it, then don't sweat about it!
- This is a movie that I knew virtually nothing about on going into it. Which is the best way to see it. As such, it's worth NOT watching the trailer, and going in on that basis if you can.
Summary Thoughts on "Nobody": It's a pretty shallow plot.... but it's also bloody good fun! I expected this to follow the well worn road of classic "revenge" movies - like "Death Wish" or "Taken" - but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. A better comparison might be Michael Douglas's "Falling Down", but with the central character having more heart.
There are lots of nods to sequences from other movies in here: "Home Alone" (for obvious reasons!); "Patriot Games" and "The Equalizer" came to my mind. And the finale reminded me strongly of the anarchic chaos of 2016's "Free Fire".
Intellectual it ain't. But provided you can stomach the Tom and Jerry style violence, and suspend your belief at the punishment Hutch can take without hospital treatment, then "Nobody" ticks all the boxes for a fun night out at the flicks.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/09/nobody-what-kevin-mcallister-did-once-all-grown-up/. There's also a new Tiktok channel at onemannsmovies. Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – John Rambo is the war veteran we all know, he has retired to a small ranch away from the world, where he has created a series of tunnels, he has helped raise Gabrielle and wants her to achieve what he couldn’t in life, with college in her future. When she goes missing, John turns the switch he keeps on the off button, becoming the soldier that will kill anybody in his way, dealing with the traumas of war and not caring about the consequences, he starts a war with the Mexican gang, one that he is prepared to end. Gabrielle is like a daughter to John, he help raise her with her love of horse riding helping their bond, she is ready for college, but the one question she wants more than anything is why her father left her, which sees her go against John’s request to Mexico in search for him. She gets drugged at forced into prostitution, with no way of escaping her captors. Victor and Hugo Martinez are running the operation, they use the girls up and sell them, they use the gang numbers to deal with any unwanted attention, including John and if a girl escapes, they will make them pay. They are pretty much routine Mexican villains though.
Performances – Sylvester Stallone is back in one of his favourite franchises, he does keep John looking a lot more like a true veteran that is still haunted by his nightmares of war, even if he is mumbling his way through the film. Yvette Monreal fills her role with ease, naïve young girl, while both Oscar Jaenada and Sergio Peris-Mencheta don’t put a foot wrong in the villainous roles.
Story – The story here follows a retired calm John Rambo that is called into action when his adoptive daughter gets taken by a gang in Mexico and he will go to any lengths to get his revenge at save her. When it comes to this style of action film, the story doesn’t need to be very deep at all, in fact the basic plot is broken down as war veteran takes on gang who took family member, lots of bodies left lying. We do get glimpses at the idea that John is still dealing with the traumas of his experiences in war, though they are very small, if we didn’t have these, we could have easily have had just another older military person doing the same thing, it didn’t need to be Rambo for the most part. Saying this, it was nice to see Rambo returning to what made his actions popular in the First Blood, with his stealth ability over the countless bullets flying around. This is everything you want and need from a Rambo movie when it comes to the story.
Action/Western – The action in the film does take it time to get going, but when Rambo starts, my word this is one of the most graphic action movies you will see, certain sequences will make John Wick’s kills look like a Disney movie.
Settings – The film does use the Mexico setting for the fish out of water when it comes to John wanting to take the fight to them, so he makes them bring to the fight to him, showing us how deadly he is when he knows the land. The settings are key to the final act of the movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brutal, when it comes to the injuries people were wincing in the cinema at certain moments, they don’t hold back in anyway.
Scene of the Movie – Whole final act.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain stories don’t seem to get an ending.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most violent action films that you will ever see, it uses the brutal action to highlight Rambo’s military skills and doesn’t hold back in anyway.
Overall: Graphic, Violent, Rambo’s Back.
Performances – Sylvester Stallone is back in one of his favourite franchises, he does keep John looking a lot more like a true veteran that is still haunted by his nightmares of war, even if he is mumbling his way through the film. Yvette Monreal fills her role with ease, naïve young girl, while both Oscar Jaenada and Sergio Peris-Mencheta don’t put a foot wrong in the villainous roles.
Story – The story here follows a retired calm John Rambo that is called into action when his adoptive daughter gets taken by a gang in Mexico and he will go to any lengths to get his revenge at save her. When it comes to this style of action film, the story doesn’t need to be very deep at all, in fact the basic plot is broken down as war veteran takes on gang who took family member, lots of bodies left lying. We do get glimpses at the idea that John is still dealing with the traumas of his experiences in war, though they are very small, if we didn’t have these, we could have easily have had just another older military person doing the same thing, it didn’t need to be Rambo for the most part. Saying this, it was nice to see Rambo returning to what made his actions popular in the First Blood, with his stealth ability over the countless bullets flying around. This is everything you want and need from a Rambo movie when it comes to the story.
Action/Western – The action in the film does take it time to get going, but when Rambo starts, my word this is one of the most graphic action movies you will see, certain sequences will make John Wick’s kills look like a Disney movie.
Settings – The film does use the Mexico setting for the fish out of water when it comes to John wanting to take the fight to them, so he makes them bring to the fight to him, showing us how deadly he is when he knows the land. The settings are key to the final act of the movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brutal, when it comes to the injuries people were wincing in the cinema at certain moments, they don’t hold back in anyway.
Scene of the Movie – Whole final act.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain stories don’t seem to get an ending.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most violent action films that you will ever see, it uses the brutal action to highlight Rambo’s military skills and doesn’t hold back in anyway.
Overall: Graphic, Violent, Rambo’s Back.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated VFW (2019) in Movies
Jun 8, 2020
VFW had been an off the cuff pick for ones to watch, at the last minute it appeared in some listings and I was intrigued by the cast and the vibe I was getting from the poster.
When a young girl's plan for revenge goes awry she leads a drug fueled army to the doorstep of the local veterans club. The group must defend their home away from home and try to survive until the morning.
The opening scene paints a picture of a slightly dystopian present/future where drugs run rife and cities are shells of their former selves. There are addicts and revellers all in different states and they're either in lively party spirits or high and out of it. Right from the off I found the set up confusing because you're watching something that is difficult to assess, the darkness makes it almost impossible to gauge the surrounding and you're thrown for a loop when they cut to the bright afternoon scene that is pinpointed by captions to just three hours later.
VFW definitely has a heavy 80s vibe to it. The titles, the background hum of music and the style of the filming. The colours are great but it is incredibly difficult to see anything unless you're watching it in anything but darkness. On my first watch I found myself squinting and peering at the screen trying to decipher what was going on.
There's no logical consistency to things that happen even if you take into consideration that half the characters are supposed to be drugged up to the eyeballs. The event that starts off the whole caper gives you a fairly clear idea of how the addicts react to things, if that is translated to the rest of the hoard then there's no way this film is making it past 30 minutes. It would have been done and dusted.
Dialogue throughout isn't very inspiring, there's are some truly dubious moments and the rest is easily forgotten. The scenes themselves aren't believable, the main cast get lots of opportunities to have moments together inside the VFW club despite having moments before been under the threat of a siege. There was one point where I genuinely wondered if the baddies approached and went "No. It's rude to interrupt someone when they're talking."
What it's missing in those areas it makes up for in random violence. (Make sure to watch out for the plastic machete.) There's a vaguely amusing tooling up sequence and I kind of hope they got the cast drunk and let them improvise weapons all on their own for it. This is another thing that smacks of the 80s, a lot of that violence feels like it's been lifted out of retro horror movies and adapted to this film.
I haven't spoken about the cast, and it's something that left me a little frustrated. The names and faces on the list are epic, they're solid actors with a lot of good credits under their belts... but even though they get a couple of good points in the film it's not really what I'd want for them.
VFW has a lot of elements that could work but with the slightly b-moviesque action scenes and clear omissions for the sake of having a "moment" I think it misses the opportunity to be something more serious. It's not right for b-movie/spoof status and because it doesn't take itself seriously enough it's left in a no man's land and I just couldn't figure out what it was trying to do, especially as even they didn't seem to know if they were attempting to make zombie or an action film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/vfw-movie-review.html
When a young girl's plan for revenge goes awry she leads a drug fueled army to the doorstep of the local veterans club. The group must defend their home away from home and try to survive until the morning.
The opening scene paints a picture of a slightly dystopian present/future where drugs run rife and cities are shells of their former selves. There are addicts and revellers all in different states and they're either in lively party spirits or high and out of it. Right from the off I found the set up confusing because you're watching something that is difficult to assess, the darkness makes it almost impossible to gauge the surrounding and you're thrown for a loop when they cut to the bright afternoon scene that is pinpointed by captions to just three hours later.
VFW definitely has a heavy 80s vibe to it. The titles, the background hum of music and the style of the filming. The colours are great but it is incredibly difficult to see anything unless you're watching it in anything but darkness. On my first watch I found myself squinting and peering at the screen trying to decipher what was going on.
There's no logical consistency to things that happen even if you take into consideration that half the characters are supposed to be drugged up to the eyeballs. The event that starts off the whole caper gives you a fairly clear idea of how the addicts react to things, if that is translated to the rest of the hoard then there's no way this film is making it past 30 minutes. It would have been done and dusted.
Dialogue throughout isn't very inspiring, there's are some truly dubious moments and the rest is easily forgotten. The scenes themselves aren't believable, the main cast get lots of opportunities to have moments together inside the VFW club despite having moments before been under the threat of a siege. There was one point where I genuinely wondered if the baddies approached and went "No. It's rude to interrupt someone when they're talking."
What it's missing in those areas it makes up for in random violence. (Make sure to watch out for the plastic machete.) There's a vaguely amusing tooling up sequence and I kind of hope they got the cast drunk and let them improvise weapons all on their own for it. This is another thing that smacks of the 80s, a lot of that violence feels like it's been lifted out of retro horror movies and adapted to this film.
I haven't spoken about the cast, and it's something that left me a little frustrated. The names and faces on the list are epic, they're solid actors with a lot of good credits under their belts... but even though they get a couple of good points in the film it's not really what I'd want for them.
VFW has a lot of elements that could work but with the slightly b-moviesque action scenes and clear omissions for the sake of having a "moment" I think it misses the opportunity to be something more serious. It's not right for b-movie/spoof status and because it doesn't take itself seriously enough it's left in a no man's land and I just couldn't figure out what it was trying to do, especially as even they didn't seem to know if they were attempting to make zombie or an action film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/vfw-movie-review.html
Clash of Crime Mad City
Games and Entertainment
App
Deceive police, double-crossed the mafia, have fun, go for a drive on steep sport muscle cars, earn...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Christine (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
If it bleeds, it leads.
Life is precious. Bad times always get good again eventually. Winter turns to spring and you feel the warmth of the sun on your face again. So what drives someone – anyone – to the point of despair sufficient for them to ignore all of the potential upturns and to take their own life?
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Charmed & Dangerous
10.0
Rate It
Book
Magic takes many forms. From malignant hexes to love charms gone amok, you’ll find a vast array of...
Urban Fantasy Paranormal MM Romance
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hens… but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” – delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Nineteen Minutes in Books
May 25, 2017
Fantastic Author
Your son says the bullying was unbearable. But his revenge was murder. What would you do?
Nineteen Minutes is perhaps Jodi Picoult’s most controversial novel, as well as one of the longest. Lots of things can happen in nineteen minutes including a school shooting resulting in the deaths of ten people. This is what happens at the beginning of this book, leaving hundreds of teachers and students emotionally scarred for the remainder of their lives. Picoult explores the reactions of a community who’s ideas of safety have been shattered, the grief of the victims and their families and, perhaps most importantly, the heartache of the parents of the shooter.
Seventeen-year-old Peter Houghton has had enough of the bullying that he has endured throughout his entire school life. He has no friends, is constantly miserable, possibly suicidal, and so, on a typical morning in March 2007 he decides permanently fix the situation, unthinking of the consequences. But why did he go to such extremes? What circumstances in his life led to firing a gun as the only solution?
As the evidence is gathered in the lead up to the court trial, many key characters question their own involvement in Peter’s life. Firstly there is Josie Cormier, a straight-A student who swapped her childhood friendship with Peter for popularity and her boyfriend Matt, a particularly aggressive bully. Secondly there is Alex Cormier, Josie’s mother, who destroyed her friendship with Peter’s mother after finding their five-year-old children playing with guns in the Houghton’s basement.
If Peter’s father had never owned a selection of hunting rifles, would Peter ever have thought of guns as a way out of his predicament? On the other hand, Lacy Houghton blames herself for not noticing how badly her son was suffering, not just at school, but at home as well, where he had to live up to the memory of his saint-like older brother who died in a car crash the previous year.
Naturally a tragic event such as this changes people, however not always in a negative way. Relationships begin to blossom as characters realize how close they were to losing the ones they love. Alex takes a step back from her demanding job to comfort Josie in the aftermath, thus feeling closer to her than she ever has done before. Alex, a single mother, also opens herself up to a romantic relationship, something she has had no time to seriously consider up until now.
All the while, Defense Attorney Jordan McAfee, who some readers may remember from Salem Falls, fights a losing battle to get Peter acquitted, by arguing and prying into Peter’s emotions to discover his reason for committing murder.
What I like about Picoult’s novels is that there is a lot more to it than a simple storyline. While the story plays out and plot twists happen, the reader is learning something new. In Nineteen Minutes Picoult provides insight into midwifery, psychology and economics – things that are not synonymous with the shootings.
Readers will constantly question whose side of the story they are on. Hundreds of people grow up being bullied and will understand how Peter was feeling; yet they would not pick up a gun. Likewise, by putting themselves in the shoes of the victims readers will think about how they would feel in the same situation. However would anyone be willing to admit that they made someone else’s life a living hell? There is no simple conclusion to Nineteen Minutes; someone will always lose. Nevertheless, Picoult’s fantastic writing skills provide an enthralling story of love and loss.
I cannot recommend this book to readers in general due to the nature of the themes found in the story. Gun crime and school shootings are sadly still an occurrence in the present time, particularly in America, therefore there are thousands of people who have been affected by such an event, whether directly or indirectly as part of a local community. Some readers may find Nineteen Minutes challenging and upsetting, which is why I am not going to encourage everyone to read this book. However, Picoult has excelled herself with this novel and it would be a shame for people not to read it. Fans will not be disappointed with her writing and will love all her characters, possibly even Peter!
Nineteen Minutes is perhaps Jodi Picoult’s most controversial novel, as well as one of the longest. Lots of things can happen in nineteen minutes including a school shooting resulting in the deaths of ten people. This is what happens at the beginning of this book, leaving hundreds of teachers and students emotionally scarred for the remainder of their lives. Picoult explores the reactions of a community who’s ideas of safety have been shattered, the grief of the victims and their families and, perhaps most importantly, the heartache of the parents of the shooter.
Seventeen-year-old Peter Houghton has had enough of the bullying that he has endured throughout his entire school life. He has no friends, is constantly miserable, possibly suicidal, and so, on a typical morning in March 2007 he decides permanently fix the situation, unthinking of the consequences. But why did he go to such extremes? What circumstances in his life led to firing a gun as the only solution?
As the evidence is gathered in the lead up to the court trial, many key characters question their own involvement in Peter’s life. Firstly there is Josie Cormier, a straight-A student who swapped her childhood friendship with Peter for popularity and her boyfriend Matt, a particularly aggressive bully. Secondly there is Alex Cormier, Josie’s mother, who destroyed her friendship with Peter’s mother after finding their five-year-old children playing with guns in the Houghton’s basement.
If Peter’s father had never owned a selection of hunting rifles, would Peter ever have thought of guns as a way out of his predicament? On the other hand, Lacy Houghton blames herself for not noticing how badly her son was suffering, not just at school, but at home as well, where he had to live up to the memory of his saint-like older brother who died in a car crash the previous year.
Naturally a tragic event such as this changes people, however not always in a negative way. Relationships begin to blossom as characters realize how close they were to losing the ones they love. Alex takes a step back from her demanding job to comfort Josie in the aftermath, thus feeling closer to her than she ever has done before. Alex, a single mother, also opens herself up to a romantic relationship, something she has had no time to seriously consider up until now.
All the while, Defense Attorney Jordan McAfee, who some readers may remember from Salem Falls, fights a losing battle to get Peter acquitted, by arguing and prying into Peter’s emotions to discover his reason for committing murder.
What I like about Picoult’s novels is that there is a lot more to it than a simple storyline. While the story plays out and plot twists happen, the reader is learning something new. In Nineteen Minutes Picoult provides insight into midwifery, psychology and economics – things that are not synonymous with the shootings.
Readers will constantly question whose side of the story they are on. Hundreds of people grow up being bullied and will understand how Peter was feeling; yet they would not pick up a gun. Likewise, by putting themselves in the shoes of the victims readers will think about how they would feel in the same situation. However would anyone be willing to admit that they made someone else’s life a living hell? There is no simple conclusion to Nineteen Minutes; someone will always lose. Nevertheless, Picoult’s fantastic writing skills provide an enthralling story of love and loss.
I cannot recommend this book to readers in general due to the nature of the themes found in the story. Gun crime and school shootings are sadly still an occurrence in the present time, particularly in America, therefore there are thousands of people who have been affected by such an event, whether directly or indirectly as part of a local community. Some readers may find Nineteen Minutes challenging and upsetting, which is why I am not going to encourage everyone to read this book. However, Picoult has excelled herself with this novel and it would be a shame for people not to read it. Fans will not be disappointed with her writing and will love all her characters, possibly even Peter!