Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Telling Christina Goodbye in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/02/review-telling-christina-goodbye-by-lurlene-mcdaniel.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Original Rating: 3.5
*Formatting and image(s) have been lost due to copy and pasting.
I hate commenting about how much the synopsis gives away. I don't find much joy in reading the book when the synopsis gives spoilers away. And I hate giving it a lower rating because of that synopsis. But as much as I want to like this book, I'm gonna have to give it a facepalm. The synopsis practically gave away EVERYTHING. From the synopsis, cover AND title, the book already gives these things away (I don't think this counts as spoilers since the synopsis already says it):
~Trisha, Christina, Cody, and Tucker are Seniors.
~Best friends, Trisha and Christina are having a great year.
~Trisha is dating Cody. Christina is dating Tucker.
~Trisha doesn't get along with Tucker.
~Christina receives a scholarship from University of Vermont.
~Tucker is controlling of Christina and wants her to stay.
~They get into a car crash after a basketball game. Trisha is injured, Cody's in a coma and Christina's dead. Yet Tucker is all injure-less.
Not to mean it in a bad way, but that gives practically the entire plot and some other stuff. Maybe even the entire book. Besides some things, such as (those who read it would know the answers already, but I'm speaking from the reader's perspective of just examining the book at the bookstore and reading the synopsis and such):
~Does Cody wake up from the coma?
~Do those effected by Christina's death find the courage to move on and heal?
~Do Trisha and Tucker get along later?
~Etc, etc. One can only know the answers to their many questions when fully reading a book.
But despite the synopsis giving so much away, Ms. McDaniel still leaves the reader, regardless of whether just staring at it at the bookstore or anyplace or have to read it due to required reading, with many questions. Props for not giving the full story away, especially the ending. And while some of us may love spoilers to the point of actually spilling beans, some of us just like to keep things detailed yet vague on what's happening because we just love the suspense building up. It would've been a triple facepalm if the synopsis gave any more away (kinda explains the meme).
If you're still thinking I'm being a bit negative, the only part I found pretty bad was how the synopsis gave it all away (I'm that person who hates too much spoilers and end up predicting and being right majority of the time. I kinda like my dose of keeping me guessing...).
In many good parts (of the pie or something good), Ms McDaniel manages to narrow in with an emotional story while weaving in the meaning of losing a cared one and to not take life fully for granted, because you never know when it will all end and it may be someone or something very close to you. (Kinda reminds me of a sad song...)
Original Rating: 3.5
*Formatting and image(s) have been lost due to copy and pasting.
I hate commenting about how much the synopsis gives away. I don't find much joy in reading the book when the synopsis gives spoilers away. And I hate giving it a lower rating because of that synopsis. But as much as I want to like this book, I'm gonna have to give it a facepalm. The synopsis practically gave away EVERYTHING. From the synopsis, cover AND title, the book already gives these things away (I don't think this counts as spoilers since the synopsis already says it):
~Trisha, Christina, Cody, and Tucker are Seniors.
~Best friends, Trisha and Christina are having a great year.
~Trisha is dating Cody. Christina is dating Tucker.
~Trisha doesn't get along with Tucker.
~Christina receives a scholarship from University of Vermont.
~Tucker is controlling of Christina and wants her to stay.
~They get into a car crash after a basketball game. Trisha is injured, Cody's in a coma and Christina's dead. Yet Tucker is all injure-less.
Not to mean it in a bad way, but that gives practically the entire plot and some other stuff. Maybe even the entire book. Besides some things, such as (those who read it would know the answers already, but I'm speaking from the reader's perspective of just examining the book at the bookstore and reading the synopsis and such):
~Does Cody wake up from the coma?
~Do those effected by Christina's death find the courage to move on and heal?
~Do Trisha and Tucker get along later?
~Etc, etc. One can only know the answers to their many questions when fully reading a book.
But despite the synopsis giving so much away, Ms. McDaniel still leaves the reader, regardless of whether just staring at it at the bookstore or anyplace or have to read it due to required reading, with many questions. Props for not giving the full story away, especially the ending. And while some of us may love spoilers to the point of actually spilling beans, some of us just like to keep things detailed yet vague on what's happening because we just love the suspense building up. It would've been a triple facepalm if the synopsis gave any more away (kinda explains the meme).
If you're still thinking I'm being a bit negative, the only part I found pretty bad was how the synopsis gave it all away (I'm that person who hates too much spoilers and end up predicting and being right majority of the time. I kinda like my dose of keeping me guessing...).
In many good parts (of the pie or something good), Ms McDaniel manages to narrow in with an emotional story while weaving in the meaning of losing a cared one and to not take life fully for granted, because you never know when it will all end and it may be someone or something very close to you. (Kinda reminds me of a sad song...)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Bad Boys, Bad Boys II, what ya gonna do? Go and watch Bad Boys For Life, that's what you're gonna do.
Mike and Marcus are still going strong but Marcus wants to slow down and ease into retirement. His life is changing and it's time to realise he's not a boy anymore. When their celebrations are rudely interrupted a hunt begins, good against bad, old school police work versus new. Will this be the end of the road for our Bad Boys?
I rewatched the original movies before this because of course you have to! Something I loved about this is that they managed to bring the series up to date while still keeping some of the key elements that added fun to the first two instalments. There's nostalgia here that I absolutely love, more on that later.
There were times while watching Bad Boys For Life that I pondered if it was still a Michael Bay film, there are quite a few glossy moments that feel like they have a touch of Bayhem about them.
I love that the original cast are back with the same great chemistry. I wasn't overly keen on the additional cast they brought in. With an established universe it's difficult to bring in that many new characters. There was a solid effort to get their backstories and personalities in but with so much other story happening it often felt out of place or tacked on. A quicker way might have been to have them introduced from their files with montage shots and be done with. I did at one point assume it was just a set up for the next film.
One of the little surprises for me was DJ Khaled, I didn't know he was in it and his part was just great, he played it so well that I was a little sad there wasn't more.
Everything has a very crisp feel to it, which was another reason my brain kept saying Bay. Vibrant surrounding, costumes and sets all perfectly matched together. I liked the contrasts between Mike and Marcus' lives, though the montage just made me think of Hobbs and Shaw and how that felt better.
There are lots of holes to pick in this, the script isn't great and I wasn't fond of the way the main storyline came together at the end but this is one of those instances where I don't think it matters. I have never watched a Bad Boys movie for its Shakespearean drama, I watch it for the banter and the action. Bad Boys For Life has that in spade, as well as an incredible amount of emotion and heart.
This is the sort of film I like to watch to have a break from the stress, I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out. It's got that chicken soup feel to it, it's familiar and it's fun... and sometimes that's what you need.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/bad-boys-for-life-movie-review.html
Mike and Marcus are still going strong but Marcus wants to slow down and ease into retirement. His life is changing and it's time to realise he's not a boy anymore. When their celebrations are rudely interrupted a hunt begins, good against bad, old school police work versus new. Will this be the end of the road for our Bad Boys?
I rewatched the original movies before this because of course you have to! Something I loved about this is that they managed to bring the series up to date while still keeping some of the key elements that added fun to the first two instalments. There's nostalgia here that I absolutely love, more on that later.
There were times while watching Bad Boys For Life that I pondered if it was still a Michael Bay film, there are quite a few glossy moments that feel like they have a touch of Bayhem about them.
I love that the original cast are back with the same great chemistry. I wasn't overly keen on the additional cast they brought in. With an established universe it's difficult to bring in that many new characters. There was a solid effort to get their backstories and personalities in but with so much other story happening it often felt out of place or tacked on. A quicker way might have been to have them introduced from their files with montage shots and be done with. I did at one point assume it was just a set up for the next film.
One of the little surprises for me was DJ Khaled, I didn't know he was in it and his part was just great, he played it so well that I was a little sad there wasn't more.
Everything has a very crisp feel to it, which was another reason my brain kept saying Bay. Vibrant surrounding, costumes and sets all perfectly matched together. I liked the contrasts between Mike and Marcus' lives, though the montage just made me think of Hobbs and Shaw and how that felt better.
There are lots of holes to pick in this, the script isn't great and I wasn't fond of the way the main storyline came together at the end but this is one of those instances where I don't think it matters. I have never watched a Bad Boys movie for its Shakespearean drama, I watch it for the banter and the action. Bad Boys For Life has that in spade, as well as an incredible amount of emotion and heart.
This is the sort of film I like to watch to have a break from the stress, I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out. It's got that chicken soup feel to it, it's familiar and it's fun... and sometimes that's what you need.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/bad-boys-for-life-movie-review.html
Picking up after the harrowing events of book one, NO MERCY finds Officer Ellery Hathaway on leave. She's going to mandated therapy, attending a group for victims of violent crime. This isn't exactly Ellery's "cup of tea," as she's not one for sharing her feelings. In group, she meets Myra, a victim of a deadly fire years ago that killed her young son. Ellery quickly gets caught up in Myra's case and becomes convinced that the wrong man--who is up for parole--was convicted of the crime. Another group member, Wendy, was brutally raped, and she asks Ellery for help finding her rapist, who is still on the loose, leaving Wendy a shadow of her once vibrant self. Ellery turns to her friend, FBI agent Reed Markham, the man who rescued her so many years ago. Reed comes, of course; he can never say no to Ellery. But Reed is also in line for a big promotion, and his boss doesn't want him near Ellery. As the two start digging, they uncover secrets: lots of them.
"You kill one guy, one time, and suddenly everyone thinks you need therapy..."
I picked up this book immediately after reading book one, because I was so captivated by Reed and Ellery. They are an amazing duo, with wonderful chemistry, both for solving crimes and in the "will they, won't they" department. Schaffhausen writes in this steady, easy-to-read way that effortlessly brings her characters to life and makes it so easy to flip the pages. Just like the first book, I tore through this one in less than 24 hours.
There are plenty of twists and turns and lots of drama. But there's also a personal and touching element to these books. Ellery and Reed have such a connection. He supposedly rescued her all those years ago, pulling near-dead Ellery from the clutches of a serial killer. But, of course, that experience has formed and hardened her in so many ways. She's a tough cookie. And it's truly just Reed who can see past her outer shell. Ellery will only allow Reed to see little glimpses of her actual self.
The mystery in this book is exemplary. We go back in time to a series of fires in Boston. Even better, it has some ties to Reed's boss, McGreevy, who worked the Boston beat back in the day (see, everything is personal). The more present-day case, Wendy's rapist, fuels Ellery, who feels as if perhaps she is worthless, unable to affect change as a police officer. It's also personal, on a whole different level. Both are compelling. Each kept me guessing and while I had some inkling about the fires, nothing would stop me from frantically turning the pages!
In the end, this was an excellent book. I love the relationship between Ellery and Reed and how it's developing. Both cases were intriguing and kept me hooked from the beginning. I immediately turned to book three, and I'm so sad it's the last one (hopefully just for now)! 4 stars.
"You kill one guy, one time, and suddenly everyone thinks you need therapy..."
I picked up this book immediately after reading book one, because I was so captivated by Reed and Ellery. They are an amazing duo, with wonderful chemistry, both for solving crimes and in the "will they, won't they" department. Schaffhausen writes in this steady, easy-to-read way that effortlessly brings her characters to life and makes it so easy to flip the pages. Just like the first book, I tore through this one in less than 24 hours.
There are plenty of twists and turns and lots of drama. But there's also a personal and touching element to these books. Ellery and Reed have such a connection. He supposedly rescued her all those years ago, pulling near-dead Ellery from the clutches of a serial killer. But, of course, that experience has formed and hardened her in so many ways. She's a tough cookie. And it's truly just Reed who can see past her outer shell. Ellery will only allow Reed to see little glimpses of her actual self.
The mystery in this book is exemplary. We go back in time to a series of fires in Boston. Even better, it has some ties to Reed's boss, McGreevy, who worked the Boston beat back in the day (see, everything is personal). The more present-day case, Wendy's rapist, fuels Ellery, who feels as if perhaps she is worthless, unable to affect change as a police officer. It's also personal, on a whole different level. Both are compelling. Each kept me guessing and while I had some inkling about the fires, nothing would stop me from frantically turning the pages!
In the end, this was an excellent book. I love the relationship between Ellery and Reed and how it's developing. Both cases were intriguing and kept me hooked from the beginning. I immediately turned to book three, and I'm so sad it's the last one (hopefully just for now)! 4 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Apollo 11 (2019) in Movies
Apr 7, 2020
I was sad to miss this one at the cinema, I imagine having it up on the big screen would have been very impressive, but only one of the mainstream cinemas had it on.
Space documentaries are always interesting, to think that all of that technology was really in its infancy and we were making such big strides for humanity is mindblowing... and that's why this felt like a letdown.
It's wonderful that we're getting this unseen footage but they've turned it into a film, it's not really a documentary at all. In a documentary I expect to learn things I didn't know before, but here while I was seeing things I'd never seen it's actually not showing you a new angle on the story. It's great to see everything evolving as it did on the day and through the journey but that isn't new. With such a rich story of science and discovery behind space exploration I am at a loss as to why they would forego having a narrator.
Having a narrator adds an extra layer of information that really does add something and makes the footage accessible to new viewers. I've seen documentaries on things like this before and so some of what I was seeing on screen was recognisable, but there were still some shots where I didn't know what I was looking at. Some prompting would have been useful, it was like walking through a museum where they've taken down the labels on the exhibits.
The footage is generally well edited throughout, and as I said before, the feel is that of a film as opposed to a documentary. They're compiled picture, audio and video images together to follow the crew on and above the Earth and the fact they can line it up so well is impressive. There's a montage as the crew return to Earth and this was particularly good when paired with "Mother Country" by John Stewart.
Putting the footage together can't have been an easy task, but some of it suffered for the sake of a shot. At one point we get a slightly out of place split screen "Go" sequence which showed all the departments calling out. I liked it as an idea but the audio isn't the best quality as it carries through, and after the initial effect it's difficult to understand what's going on and that detracts from some of the impact.
I appreciate the fact they dug into the archives for everything, the studio even used their 1969 logo, and crafting music that would have been possible then was impressive... even if a lot of it wasn't as inspiring as the moments it accompanied.
While Apollo 11 itself is a mindblowing event the way this "documentary" has been produced is not. Well crafted, yes, but its lack of further detail and background had a heavy negative impact for me. If I was rating just for the event then it would absolutely be a 5 star review, as a newly produced bit of work it doesn't bring anything new to the table even with it all being new footage.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/apollo-11-movie-review.html
Space documentaries are always interesting, to think that all of that technology was really in its infancy and we were making such big strides for humanity is mindblowing... and that's why this felt like a letdown.
It's wonderful that we're getting this unseen footage but they've turned it into a film, it's not really a documentary at all. In a documentary I expect to learn things I didn't know before, but here while I was seeing things I'd never seen it's actually not showing you a new angle on the story. It's great to see everything evolving as it did on the day and through the journey but that isn't new. With such a rich story of science and discovery behind space exploration I am at a loss as to why they would forego having a narrator.
Having a narrator adds an extra layer of information that really does add something and makes the footage accessible to new viewers. I've seen documentaries on things like this before and so some of what I was seeing on screen was recognisable, but there were still some shots where I didn't know what I was looking at. Some prompting would have been useful, it was like walking through a museum where they've taken down the labels on the exhibits.
The footage is generally well edited throughout, and as I said before, the feel is that of a film as opposed to a documentary. They're compiled picture, audio and video images together to follow the crew on and above the Earth and the fact they can line it up so well is impressive. There's a montage as the crew return to Earth and this was particularly good when paired with "Mother Country" by John Stewart.
Putting the footage together can't have been an easy task, but some of it suffered for the sake of a shot. At one point we get a slightly out of place split screen "Go" sequence which showed all the departments calling out. I liked it as an idea but the audio isn't the best quality as it carries through, and after the initial effect it's difficult to understand what's going on and that detracts from some of the impact.
I appreciate the fact they dug into the archives for everything, the studio even used their 1969 logo, and crafting music that would have been possible then was impressive... even if a lot of it wasn't as inspiring as the moments it accompanied.
While Apollo 11 itself is a mindblowing event the way this "documentary" has been produced is not. Well crafted, yes, but its lack of further detail and background had a heavy negative impact for me. If I was rating just for the event then it would absolutely be a 5 star review, as a newly produced bit of work it doesn't bring anything new to the table even with it all being new footage.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/apollo-11-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Seventh Son (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
After a two-year delay, Seventh Son has finally reached the big screen, and it will leave you conflicted.
Seventh Son is brought to us by director Sergey Bodrov. Originally set for a February 2013 release, the film had complicated distribution arrangements between Legendary and Warner Brothers, which kept causing delays.
Jeff Bridges plays one of the title characters: Master John Gregory. He is the last of an order of peacekeeper knights, which once used to be a thousand strong. All of these knights are seventh sons of seventh sons, and are self-tasked with keeping the evil creatures of the world at bay.
The movie starts off with a young Gregory completing a prison cell for an unknown woman. Years later, the prisoner, a draconic beast, breaks out and attacks a nearby town, specifically targeting the aged Knight and his apprentice (Kit Harington — Jon Snow from Game of Thrones). This recently released evil is Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), the queen of witches.
During the battle, Harington’s brief existence in this film is brought to an end, causing Gregory to seek out another apprentice. This search leads him to young Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes). After Ward goes through some sad goodbyes with his family, he and Gregory set out to take down the Witch Queen before the blood moon sets.
His training would normally take 10 years, but they only have a week.
Put simply, this movie was very fragmented. It isn’t a good movie, but it isn’t a bad one either. It has reasonable special effects and decent fight scenes.
There is plenty of star power: Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Kit Harington, Djimon Hounsou (one of my favorites), and Jason Scott Lee.
Jeff Bridges missed the mark on his character. It’s one thing to be disgruntled and war-torn with a curious sense of humor, but it’s something quite different to be outright silly.
There were no explanations. How did the order come about? Why seventh sons of seventh sons? How did Gregory KNOW there was a seventh son at that house? How did the war start? Why is Gregory the last? Why wasn’t there more about Gregory’s relationship with Malkin? Why did the skeleton in the armor attack Tom? Why do the swords hum? Where did the stone come from? Why was it powerful? Why anything, really? The story has no depth, failing to explain the “why” of any of its lore. There were only statements of fact, which confuses viewers and prevents them from becoming emotionally anchored to the story.
I simply didn’t care about the characters. The film was disorganized and rushed. Perhaps it would have been better served as two films, or a longer film, or even a mini series.
Seventh Son had the potential to be so much more. A combination of poor writing and bad direction made the movie lackluster to me and all three of my companions.
The actors delivered many campy one-liners, and the chuckles they drew from the crowd were quite unintentional.
If you are a fan of high fantasy, it’s probably worth seeing, but wait for it to arrive on Netflix and use it as background entertainment
Seventh Son is brought to us by director Sergey Bodrov. Originally set for a February 2013 release, the film had complicated distribution arrangements between Legendary and Warner Brothers, which kept causing delays.
Jeff Bridges plays one of the title characters: Master John Gregory. He is the last of an order of peacekeeper knights, which once used to be a thousand strong. All of these knights are seventh sons of seventh sons, and are self-tasked with keeping the evil creatures of the world at bay.
The movie starts off with a young Gregory completing a prison cell for an unknown woman. Years later, the prisoner, a draconic beast, breaks out and attacks a nearby town, specifically targeting the aged Knight and his apprentice (Kit Harington — Jon Snow from Game of Thrones). This recently released evil is Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), the queen of witches.
During the battle, Harington’s brief existence in this film is brought to an end, causing Gregory to seek out another apprentice. This search leads him to young Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes). After Ward goes through some sad goodbyes with his family, he and Gregory set out to take down the Witch Queen before the blood moon sets.
His training would normally take 10 years, but they only have a week.
Put simply, this movie was very fragmented. It isn’t a good movie, but it isn’t a bad one either. It has reasonable special effects and decent fight scenes.
There is plenty of star power: Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Kit Harington, Djimon Hounsou (one of my favorites), and Jason Scott Lee.
Jeff Bridges missed the mark on his character. It’s one thing to be disgruntled and war-torn with a curious sense of humor, but it’s something quite different to be outright silly.
There were no explanations. How did the order come about? Why seventh sons of seventh sons? How did Gregory KNOW there was a seventh son at that house? How did the war start? Why is Gregory the last? Why wasn’t there more about Gregory’s relationship with Malkin? Why did the skeleton in the armor attack Tom? Why do the swords hum? Where did the stone come from? Why was it powerful? Why anything, really? The story has no depth, failing to explain the “why” of any of its lore. There were only statements of fact, which confuses viewers and prevents them from becoming emotionally anchored to the story.
I simply didn’t care about the characters. The film was disorganized and rushed. Perhaps it would have been better served as two films, or a longer film, or even a mini series.
Seventh Son had the potential to be so much more. A combination of poor writing and bad direction made the movie lackluster to me and all three of my companions.
The actors delivered many campy one-liners, and the chuckles they drew from the crowd were quite unintentional.
If you are a fan of high fantasy, it’s probably worth seeing, but wait for it to arrive on Netflix and use it as background entertainment
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Chopping Mall (1986) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020
As I sat on my sofa looking for trash to watch I headed over to Prime to see what there was available. I decided to scroll through films it thought I'd like to watch based on my previous viewing habits... and that's how I discovered Chopping Mall, which is a much better title than it's alternative, Killbots... you always have to go for the pun. Amazon may know me a little bit too well with this recommendation.
The latest in shopping mall security is here, robot security guards that patrol the walkways and detain robbers with minimal fuss keeping your stores and staff safe*. [*Disclaimer: Unless there's a technical malfunction, in which case we take no responsibility for the massive loss of life and property damage.]
This is possibly one of the most 80s of all 80s films. Fantastic hair, all those pastel colours and were thankfully lost some time in the early 90s, random nudity, terrific electronic music [that you know what created by someone who also had fantastic hair] and Dick Miller. I don't even know what I have to say any further than that... go to Prime and watch it immediately!
Sure, Chopping Mall will make you never trust a furniture store again but it's still totally worth watching.
There are moments where you want to scream at the screen for errors in common sense and continuity, but in that fun way where you're laughing and telling them they're all going to die because of their stupidity. That alone is worth watching it for. At only one point during the film did I think something was actually bad, and that was during a stunt where they obviously had the actress off screen doing the audio for a stunt double and the two didn't match well... honestly though, that's just nitpicking.
No, you're not mistaken if you thought you recognised the shopping mall in this, it's the same one used in T2, Commando and Fast Times At Ridgemont High as well as others. In fact there's a lot to spot in the film with nods to other films and the director, though I have to admit that most of them passed me by.
The film is an incredibly short (but very entertaining) 77 minutes and it's worth every second of time you spend on it. Turning to the trivia you'll discover that this is a cut down of the original... the one titled Killbots. It was initially released with about 15 minutes of extra footage but performed badly so they cut it down and renamed it to appeal more to the horror fans. Finding this trivia also made me realise that there's actually no chopping in the whole movie, which made me sad, but I still love the pun.
I could analyse this until the cows come home but it's just genuinely great fun. The acting is exactly what I love about these sorts of movies and there's nothing frivolous thrown in, that was one of the best films I've seen in ages and I'm annoyed I never discovered it before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/chopping-mall-movie-review.html
The latest in shopping mall security is here, robot security guards that patrol the walkways and detain robbers with minimal fuss keeping your stores and staff safe*. [*Disclaimer: Unless there's a technical malfunction, in which case we take no responsibility for the massive loss of life and property damage.]
This is possibly one of the most 80s of all 80s films. Fantastic hair, all those pastel colours and were thankfully lost some time in the early 90s, random nudity, terrific electronic music [that you know what created by someone who also had fantastic hair] and Dick Miller. I don't even know what I have to say any further than that... go to Prime and watch it immediately!
Sure, Chopping Mall will make you never trust a furniture store again but it's still totally worth watching.
There are moments where you want to scream at the screen for errors in common sense and continuity, but in that fun way where you're laughing and telling them they're all going to die because of their stupidity. That alone is worth watching it for. At only one point during the film did I think something was actually bad, and that was during a stunt where they obviously had the actress off screen doing the audio for a stunt double and the two didn't match well... honestly though, that's just nitpicking.
No, you're not mistaken if you thought you recognised the shopping mall in this, it's the same one used in T2, Commando and Fast Times At Ridgemont High as well as others. In fact there's a lot to spot in the film with nods to other films and the director, though I have to admit that most of them passed me by.
The film is an incredibly short (but very entertaining) 77 minutes and it's worth every second of time you spend on it. Turning to the trivia you'll discover that this is a cut down of the original... the one titled Killbots. It was initially released with about 15 minutes of extra footage but performed badly so they cut it down and renamed it to appeal more to the horror fans. Finding this trivia also made me realise that there's actually no chopping in the whole movie, which made me sad, but I still love the pun.
I could analyse this until the cows come home but it's just genuinely great fun. The acting is exactly what I love about these sorts of movies and there's nothing frivolous thrown in, that was one of the best films I've seen in ages and I'm annoyed I never discovered it before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/chopping-mall-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Pieces of a Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 16, 2021
Realistic view of Grieving
Films about grief are a tricky proposition, for while they can be cathartic and life-affirming, they can also be dour, depressing experiences that spiral downward under it’s own weight.
Fortunately, PIECES OF A WOMAN avoids wallowing in it’s own melancholy and gives the audience a thoughtful, heavy, exploration of grief and what grief does to a dysfunctional family.
Written by Kata Weber, who wrote this as a way to deal with her own grief, PIECES OF A WOMAN tells the tale of how a family deals with a tragedy when a home birth goes “horribly wrong” (not spoiling anything here, it’s in the marketing material).
I was fearful going into this film that we would be subjected to an intense, bloody butchery of a home birth, but Director Kornel Mundruczo and actors Vanessa Kirby, Shia LaBeouf and the always good Molly Parker gives us a loving, caring, intense and (ultimately) sad and tragic beginning to the film.
And then comes grief…and anger…and blame…and isolation.
Sitting squarely in the middle of all of this is Vanessa Kirby (Princess Margaret in the first 2 seasons of THE CROWN) in her Oscar Nominated turn as the birth mother in the middle of all of this. We follow her as she drifts in oblivion while those around her try to tell her what to do and how to feel. It is a haunted, holisitic, realistic portrayal of a person who just wants to fade into nothingness rather than feel the tragic loss.
Shia LaBeouf (TRANSFORMERS) proves, once again, that he can act as the husband/father. His character, Sean, is impotent to prevent the tragedy, care for his wife and deal with his own grief. He, too, creates a real character and the interplay between husband and wife are all too realistic.
The great, Oscar-winning Actress Ellen Burstyn (the mother in THE EXORCIST) is on board as the domineering mother of Kirby’s character who demands that someone pays for the death of the child. This is the type of showy-role that an aging, revered actress is normally Oscar nominated for and I am surprised she was not (especially because an added layer was added to her character that makes her, as well, realistic).
Credit for all of these performance has to go to Director Mundruczo for steering this ship away from maudlin and melodrama and squarely into the real world. It’s not a perfect Directing job as the film does tend to dwell on the grief and Kirby’s character does spend a good deal of time looking out the window while a solo piano plays single notes, but those are nits on an otherwise solid effort.
All-in-all I was pleasantly surprised at how moving - and real - this film is. You have to be in the mood for this movie (grief is not a happy subject) but you will be rewarded with a strong look at grief and it’s affects.
Letter Grade: A- (I could have used a few less moments of looking out the window to tinkling of the piano keys)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Fortunately, PIECES OF A WOMAN avoids wallowing in it’s own melancholy and gives the audience a thoughtful, heavy, exploration of grief and what grief does to a dysfunctional family.
Written by Kata Weber, who wrote this as a way to deal with her own grief, PIECES OF A WOMAN tells the tale of how a family deals with a tragedy when a home birth goes “horribly wrong” (not spoiling anything here, it’s in the marketing material).
I was fearful going into this film that we would be subjected to an intense, bloody butchery of a home birth, but Director Kornel Mundruczo and actors Vanessa Kirby, Shia LaBeouf and the always good Molly Parker gives us a loving, caring, intense and (ultimately) sad and tragic beginning to the film.
And then comes grief…and anger…and blame…and isolation.
Sitting squarely in the middle of all of this is Vanessa Kirby (Princess Margaret in the first 2 seasons of THE CROWN) in her Oscar Nominated turn as the birth mother in the middle of all of this. We follow her as she drifts in oblivion while those around her try to tell her what to do and how to feel. It is a haunted, holisitic, realistic portrayal of a person who just wants to fade into nothingness rather than feel the tragic loss.
Shia LaBeouf (TRANSFORMERS) proves, once again, that he can act as the husband/father. His character, Sean, is impotent to prevent the tragedy, care for his wife and deal with his own grief. He, too, creates a real character and the interplay between husband and wife are all too realistic.
The great, Oscar-winning Actress Ellen Burstyn (the mother in THE EXORCIST) is on board as the domineering mother of Kirby’s character who demands that someone pays for the death of the child. This is the type of showy-role that an aging, revered actress is normally Oscar nominated for and I am surprised she was not (especially because an added layer was added to her character that makes her, as well, realistic).
Credit for all of these performance has to go to Director Mundruczo for steering this ship away from maudlin and melodrama and squarely into the real world. It’s not a perfect Directing job as the film does tend to dwell on the grief and Kirby’s character does spend a good deal of time looking out the window while a solo piano plays single notes, but those are nits on an otherwise solid effort.
All-in-all I was pleasantly surprised at how moving - and real - this film is. You have to be in the mood for this movie (grief is not a happy subject) but you will be rewarded with a strong look at grief and it’s affects.
Letter Grade: A- (I could have used a few less moments of looking out the window to tinkling of the piano keys)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Son of Frankenstein (1939) in Movies
Oct 9, 2020
Boris Karloff (3 more)
Bela Lugosi
Basil Rathbone
Lionel Atwill
The Monster's Alive Once More
Son of Frankenstein- is a great continuation of the frankenstein franchise. Boris Karloff os back as the monster but this would be the last time he would play the monster in the universal monster universe. Its sad cause when you think of frankenstein, you think of Boris.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Eden Summer in Books
Jun 24, 2019
I keep falling behind on wiring my reviews, sorry! I really need to get back on track. I finished this on Tuesday I think? I really enjoyed it, although it isn't quite worthy of five stars.
I'm going to put in a trigger warning as there are mentions of substance abuse, physical abuse, death, adoption and suicide.
Jess's best friend has gone missing. Through interviews with the police and Jess's personal recollections, we begin to build up a picture of Eden's life before her disappearance. Her sister had recently been killed in a car accident, and her seemingly perfect relationship with Liam was more complicated than anyone realised. Bit by bit, Jess - and we - begin to piece things together and discover where Eden has gone.
The girls are only young - 15 I think? - and very much have the all-consuming passion that young teens feel. As in, every little issue feels huge, and things feel far more serious than they might to an older person. I remember feeling this way. I think it was portrayed so accurately, the way fighting with your best friend feels like the end of the world and a family argument overwhelms you with guilt. It was a bit annoying in some ways, though; no fault of the author, of course, I just get a bit annoyed at kids taking things too seriously. I look back at myself and think how stupid it was to get so caught up in such little issues. So the things that Jess gets so worked up over just seemed a bit trivial to me, like she was exaggerating too much. But as I said, this creates the teenage voice really well in my opinion.
The things that both these girls have gone through are massive, though - Jess was attacked and Eden's sister killed. That's pretty hard for a young girl to deal with, and these are not the problems I'm saying are trivial. These are hugely important and emotional issues and I think it's great to talk about. I love books with these real, albeit sad, events. I think it is so good to discuss all the feelings and situations that follow, and also emphasise how it is not the end of the world if something bad happens. life will continue. Eden says how she feels her sister's death becoming more distant, more bearable, and how she doesn't want that to happen. She feels guilty, as if she's forgetting her and moving on. This is so important. She also thinks about killing herself due to guilt - which I won't ruin too much - but then realises how she shouldn't take life for granted. Her sister would've given anything to be alive still, and she shouldn't be throwing that away.
It was a really good read and I found myself wondering what was going to be revealed next. It was wel written and perfectly captured the young voice of Jess. If I read this when I was younger, I think I would've adored it. I would've understood it and connected to Jess more than I did now I'm older. 4 stars, definitely worth a read.
I'm going to put in a trigger warning as there are mentions of substance abuse, physical abuse, death, adoption and suicide.
Jess's best friend has gone missing. Through interviews with the police and Jess's personal recollections, we begin to build up a picture of Eden's life before her disappearance. Her sister had recently been killed in a car accident, and her seemingly perfect relationship with Liam was more complicated than anyone realised. Bit by bit, Jess - and we - begin to piece things together and discover where Eden has gone.
The girls are only young - 15 I think? - and very much have the all-consuming passion that young teens feel. As in, every little issue feels huge, and things feel far more serious than they might to an older person. I remember feeling this way. I think it was portrayed so accurately, the way fighting with your best friend feels like the end of the world and a family argument overwhelms you with guilt. It was a bit annoying in some ways, though; no fault of the author, of course, I just get a bit annoyed at kids taking things too seriously. I look back at myself and think how stupid it was to get so caught up in such little issues. So the things that Jess gets so worked up over just seemed a bit trivial to me, like she was exaggerating too much. But as I said, this creates the teenage voice really well in my opinion.
The things that both these girls have gone through are massive, though - Jess was attacked and Eden's sister killed. That's pretty hard for a young girl to deal with, and these are not the problems I'm saying are trivial. These are hugely important and emotional issues and I think it's great to talk about. I love books with these real, albeit sad, events. I think it is so good to discuss all the feelings and situations that follow, and also emphasise how it is not the end of the world if something bad happens. life will continue. Eden says how she feels her sister's death becoming more distant, more bearable, and how she doesn't want that to happen. She feels guilty, as if she's forgetting her and moving on. This is so important. She also thinks about killing herself due to guilt - which I won't ruin too much - but then realises how she shouldn't take life for granted. Her sister would've given anything to be alive still, and she shouldn't be throwing that away.
It was a really good read and I found myself wondering what was going to be revealed next. It was wel written and perfectly captured the young voice of Jess. If I read this when I was younger, I think I would've adored it. I would've understood it and connected to Jess more than I did now I'm older. 4 stars, definitely worth a read.
Pimp Wallpapers(HD) - Customize Your Home Screen
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
ON SALE! 50% OFF for a Limited Time Only! 1)Pimp Wallpapers(HD) - Wallpaper & Home Screen &...