Search
Cynthia Armistead (17 KP) rated All Clear (All Clear, #2) in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Well, this volume moved much more quickly than [b:Blackout|6506307|Blackout|Connie Willis|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1402428101s/6506307.jpg|6697901] did! Having read a brief piece written by Ms. Willis thanking those who stood by her as one book spread into two, I think I have a slightly better understanding now of what happened that led to my unhappiness with the way the first book ended. They really shouldn't be two books, but they couldn't physically fit into one volume. Or, for many e-readers, one ebook.
It is still a large book! And, as in [b:Blackout|6506307|Blackout|Connie Willis|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1402428101s/6506307.jpg|6697901], it isn't always clear just who a character is. I'm reading along happily and all of a sudden, there's a new main character! Wait, who is this? Has Colin gotten through somehow? Or is it another historian? Or another trip by one of the people we already know? Or--but--…Ms. Willis does a marvelous job of keeping us guessing. And the historians' habit of using different names on different assignments meant that I didn't always know which person I was reading about even when I thought I did know who he or she was! The reader has to catch the tiniest details to know that something isn't quite right, or be left completely surprised at the reveal! The many references to [a:Agatha Christie|123715|Agatha Christie|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1321738793p2/123715.jpg] are definitely meaningful, and I've come to believe that I haven't read nearly enough of her work!
I've always considered Ms. Willis a cerebral author, but my emotions were heavily engaged here. The analogy of Polly, Sir Godfrey, and <i>The Admirable Crichton</i> was so apt, and that dreadful business in the Phoenix had me bawling. By the time a hero we'd grown to know and love dearly fell, and fell so, so close to home, I was a basket case.
After finishing this massive duology (which really should count as one enormous book spread across two volumes), you would think that I would be sick and tired of all things Willis and not want to read another word by her for the next year or so. Instead, I want to know, right now, what comes next. I want to read about Eileen and the Vicar, and watch Alf and Binnie grow up. I want to see Polly and Colin's relationship grow.
I imagine Ms. Willis is rather tired of all of them, though, and happy to rest for a while and remember what it is to live back in this century again. The Oxford Time Travel universe offers so many rich and fascinating possibilities for fiction, and I hope she chooses to write many more novels set in it. I'll definitely be willing to read them!
It is still a large book! And, as in [b:Blackout|6506307|Blackout|Connie Willis|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1402428101s/6506307.jpg|6697901], it isn't always clear just who a character is. I'm reading along happily and all of a sudden, there's a new main character! Wait, who is this? Has Colin gotten through somehow? Or is it another historian? Or another trip by one of the people we already know? Or--but--…Ms. Willis does a marvelous job of keeping us guessing. And the historians' habit of using different names on different assignments meant that I didn't always know which person I was reading about even when I thought I did know who he or she was! The reader has to catch the tiniest details to know that something isn't quite right, or be left completely surprised at the reveal! The many references to [a:Agatha Christie|123715|Agatha Christie|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1321738793p2/123715.jpg] are definitely meaningful, and I've come to believe that I haven't read nearly enough of her work!
I've always considered Ms. Willis a cerebral author, but my emotions were heavily engaged here. The analogy of Polly, Sir Godfrey, and <i>The Admirable Crichton</i> was so apt, and that dreadful business in the Phoenix had me bawling. By the time a hero we'd grown to know and love dearly fell, and fell so, so close to home, I was a basket case.
After finishing this massive duology (which really should count as one enormous book spread across two volumes), you would think that I would be sick and tired of all things Willis and not want to read another word by her for the next year or so. Instead, I want to know, right now, what comes next. I want to read about Eileen and the Vicar, and watch Alf and Binnie grow up. I want to see Polly and Colin's relationship grow.
I imagine Ms. Willis is rather tired of all of them, though, and happy to rest for a while and remember what it is to live back in this century again. The Oxford Time Travel universe offers so many rich and fascinating possibilities for fiction, and I hope she chooses to write many more novels set in it. I'll definitely be willing to read them!
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Grandmaster in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Being one of the little gems hidden in the teen shelves at the library, <i>Grandmaster</i> is apparently one of the few books about chess that's fiction and not a how to book or a book about the best moves to smack your opponents down in chess.
It is also a book that I have completely mixed feelings about a book that I completely relate to as a chess player (I AM a girl, thank you very much), <b><i>Grandmaster</i> deals with the darker side of chess at the higher level competition in a thriller-like fashion</b>. As the book goes from start to end and the tournament gets closer to the final round, you can literally tell from Klass' writing that the tension among the competitors are growing along with the excitement at the possibility of seeing two rival grandmasters from several decades facing off each other in the final round.
<i>Grandmaster</i> did have a few imperfections, much as Klass' writing was engrossing and highly interesting there were quite a few clichés and stereotypes, and the majority of the characters were so annoying, I had some tendency to not finish the book simply because of the characters.
Everyone makes this particular tournament a whoppingly huge deal and we have players from all walks of life, particularly the extremely snobby ones from the rich and wealthy. Of all the rounds Klass talks about, almost all of the players faced someone snobby every once in a blue moon there would be a player who was at the very least friendly.
Most of the characters are extremely competitive and have a temper of sorts Dr. Chisolm and Mr. Kinney throw insults at Grandmaster Pratzer, and Brad and Eric (the stereotypes of playboy and lazy bum superstar) make fun of Daniel. Mr. Kinney in particularly is the most competitive of all and probably the next Christian Grey with the way he orders people around don't get me started on that.
And each time the characters lose, all of them (aside from Daniel) are literally on the verge of losing control. From stomping out, turning angrily red, huffing and puffing Klass might even be sending a subtle message about having good sportsmanship.
As the tournament and the book draws to a close, the book does get better the characters finally get their act together and make some changes (though they don't change so much that it becomes unrealistic). The ending is a happily ever after, a nice comparison to the high stakes and pressures of a chess tournament that Klass reveals throughout.
<blockquote>If you're up against a strong player get him off the book and make him think for himself.</blockquote>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-grandmaster-by-david-klass/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
It is also a book that I have completely mixed feelings about a book that I completely relate to as a chess player (I AM a girl, thank you very much), <b><i>Grandmaster</i> deals with the darker side of chess at the higher level competition in a thriller-like fashion</b>. As the book goes from start to end and the tournament gets closer to the final round, you can literally tell from Klass' writing that the tension among the competitors are growing along with the excitement at the possibility of seeing two rival grandmasters from several decades facing off each other in the final round.
<i>Grandmaster</i> did have a few imperfections, much as Klass' writing was engrossing and highly interesting there were quite a few clichés and stereotypes, and the majority of the characters were so annoying, I had some tendency to not finish the book simply because of the characters.
Everyone makes this particular tournament a whoppingly huge deal and we have players from all walks of life, particularly the extremely snobby ones from the rich and wealthy. Of all the rounds Klass talks about, almost all of the players faced someone snobby every once in a blue moon there would be a player who was at the very least friendly.
Most of the characters are extremely competitive and have a temper of sorts Dr. Chisolm and Mr. Kinney throw insults at Grandmaster Pratzer, and Brad and Eric (the stereotypes of playboy and lazy bum superstar) make fun of Daniel. Mr. Kinney in particularly is the most competitive of all and probably the next Christian Grey with the way he orders people around don't get me started on that.
And each time the characters lose, all of them (aside from Daniel) are literally on the verge of losing control. From stomping out, turning angrily red, huffing and puffing Klass might even be sending a subtle message about having good sportsmanship.
As the tournament and the book draws to a close, the book does get better the characters finally get their act together and make some changes (though they don't change so much that it becomes unrealistic). The ending is a happily ever after, a nice comparison to the high stakes and pressures of a chess tournament that Klass reveals throughout.
<blockquote>If you're up against a strong player get him off the book and make him think for himself.</blockquote>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-grandmaster-by-david-klass/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Travels with My Harp: The Complete Autobiography
Book
Mary O'Hara's life story is something only the most inspired press agent could ever hope to concoct'...
Into the Wind: My Six-Month Journey Wandering the World for Life's Purpose
Book
Without a map, nineteen-year-old Jake Ducey leaves behind a drug-filled life and college basketball...
Lonely Planet Hiking & Tramping in New Zealand
Lonely Planet, Sarah Bennett, Lee Slater and Jim DuFresne
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Hiking & Tramping in New...
PT
Purifying the Land of the Pure: A History of Pakistan's Religious Minorities
Book
When Pakistan was founded in 1947, it had a rich tapestry of different religious groups, ranging...
Coloma
8.5
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Coloma is the town where an unexpected event happened that shaped history of the Western Frontier....
Boardgames WildWestgames 2019Games
Eddie's Bastard
Book
In this rich, deeply resonant literary debut, twenty-eight-year-old William Kowalski explores the...
fiction literary fiction contemporary American
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Minions (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bright, smart and hilarious
They’re everywhere! Minions have become a worldwide phenomenon since their unveiling in 2010’s smash-hit Despicable Me and for their return in its sequel.
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/