Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
The Eternal Series - Box Set Books 1 to 4
6.0
Rate It
Book
FOUR BOOKS… PLUS TWO SHORT STORIES Eternal Covenant Eternity Never Looked This Good Cassie...
Paranormal Romance Boxset
Papa's Pizzeria HD
Games
App
Top, bake, and serve seasonal pizzas in Papa's Pizzeria HD! -- ABOUT THE GAME -- Things get...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Booksmart (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A raunchy but extremely funny teen-sex comedy.
A panda’s eye view of teenage life.
I tend to struggle to find a really good comedy to add to my top 10 of the year. Last year it was “Game Night” that made my list. One that is definitely heading there this year is “Booksmart”.
A retread on a well-travelled tyre.
The coming of age school comedy has been rehashed multiple times. These include films as varied as “Napoleon Dynamite”, “Superbad”, “Easy A”, “Mean Girls”, “Never Been Kissed” and “10 Things I Hate About You”. In tone, “Booksmart” is probably closest to “Superbad”, but it manages – under the direction of actress Olivia Wilde, in her debut feature – to establish a quirky likeability all of its own. An instant classic in the making.
Not for the prudish.
The story concerns two BFF’s – Molly (Beanie Feldstein, sister of Jonah Hill) and Amy (Kaitlyn Dever). They have both spent their young lives trying to score A’s at school in lieu of all other distractions. On the eve of their graduation, Molly realises that this was not a binary option. Her school companions have managed to get all of the success without any of the self-sacrifice! She calls “Malala”! And the duo proceed on a drink and drug-fuelled night to catch up on all the school social life they have missed out on!
Part of this catching up includes sex, and with Amy as a naive wannabe lesbian, in awe of tom-boy skateboarder Ryan (Victoria Ruesga), coming out has never seemed so painful.
I first saw this on a plane and guffawed so much that I went out to buy the DVD for a family viewing. Watching it again though, it is really very, very rude. If you were to categorize it, I think “sex comedy” would be a primary tag. A clumsy but realistic scene between Amy and the “hot girl” Hope (Diana Silvers… who really is) is excruciatingly hard to watch. This can therefore prove an uncomfortable co-watch for ‘young folks’ who – despite all the obvious evidence! – assume their parents / in-laws have done nothing in the past other than hold hands!! 🙂
In a great ensemble cast, Kaitlyn Dever is a revelation.
Kaitlyn Dever has cut her teeth with supporting roles on a few B-grade movies this year including “Beautiful Boy” and “The Front Runner“. But here she takes centre stage and is an absolute revelation as the sexually bemused teen. While Beanie Feldstein has the more obvious comic lead role, it is Dever who continually grabbed my attention with her acting skills. This young lady is added to my “one to watch” list.
This is not to decry the rest of the cast. For this is a great ensemble performance from a pretty unknown cast. The only familiar faces are Lisa Kudrow and Jason Sudeikis, but they only have bit parts.
The only role that didn’t quite work for me was that of the kooky drugged out hippie Gigi (Billie Lourd). It was all a bit too over-the-top for me in a movie that didn’t really need that sort of manic angle. (However, this did set up a Marwen-style drug scene that made me snort… with laughter).
As a comedy, will this by the whole you think it is?
I think this will prove to be a firm young person’s favourite for many years to come. Whether you will find it funny or not will probably depend on the setting of your ‘crudometer’ and your resilience to bad language on screen.
For me, personally, I am clearly still 17 on the inside! I loved it. Not only do I think it a good comedy. It is also a feel-good movie about best friends; a coming of age lesbian adventure; and a film that treats the multi-coloured spectrum of modern sexual variety as something entirely normal and to be celebrated.
I tend to struggle to find a really good comedy to add to my top 10 of the year. Last year it was “Game Night” that made my list. One that is definitely heading there this year is “Booksmart”.
A retread on a well-travelled tyre.
The coming of age school comedy has been rehashed multiple times. These include films as varied as “Napoleon Dynamite”, “Superbad”, “Easy A”, “Mean Girls”, “Never Been Kissed” and “10 Things I Hate About You”. In tone, “Booksmart” is probably closest to “Superbad”, but it manages – under the direction of actress Olivia Wilde, in her debut feature – to establish a quirky likeability all of its own. An instant classic in the making.
Not for the prudish.
The story concerns two BFF’s – Molly (Beanie Feldstein, sister of Jonah Hill) and Amy (Kaitlyn Dever). They have both spent their young lives trying to score A’s at school in lieu of all other distractions. On the eve of their graduation, Molly realises that this was not a binary option. Her school companions have managed to get all of the success without any of the self-sacrifice! She calls “Malala”! And the duo proceed on a drink and drug-fuelled night to catch up on all the school social life they have missed out on!
Part of this catching up includes sex, and with Amy as a naive wannabe lesbian, in awe of tom-boy skateboarder Ryan (Victoria Ruesga), coming out has never seemed so painful.
I first saw this on a plane and guffawed so much that I went out to buy the DVD for a family viewing. Watching it again though, it is really very, very rude. If you were to categorize it, I think “sex comedy” would be a primary tag. A clumsy but realistic scene between Amy and the “hot girl” Hope (Diana Silvers… who really is) is excruciatingly hard to watch. This can therefore prove an uncomfortable co-watch for ‘young folks’ who – despite all the obvious evidence! – assume their parents / in-laws have done nothing in the past other than hold hands!! 🙂
In a great ensemble cast, Kaitlyn Dever is a revelation.
Kaitlyn Dever has cut her teeth with supporting roles on a few B-grade movies this year including “Beautiful Boy” and “The Front Runner“. But here she takes centre stage and is an absolute revelation as the sexually bemused teen. While Beanie Feldstein has the more obvious comic lead role, it is Dever who continually grabbed my attention with her acting skills. This young lady is added to my “one to watch” list.
This is not to decry the rest of the cast. For this is a great ensemble performance from a pretty unknown cast. The only familiar faces are Lisa Kudrow and Jason Sudeikis, but they only have bit parts.
The only role that didn’t quite work for me was that of the kooky drugged out hippie Gigi (Billie Lourd). It was all a bit too over-the-top for me in a movie that didn’t really need that sort of manic angle. (However, this did set up a Marwen-style drug scene that made me snort… with laughter).
As a comedy, will this by the whole you think it is?
I think this will prove to be a firm young person’s favourite for many years to come. Whether you will find it funny or not will probably depend on the setting of your ‘crudometer’ and your resilience to bad language on screen.
For me, personally, I am clearly still 17 on the inside! I loved it. Not only do I think it a good comedy. It is also a feel-good movie about best friends; a coming of age lesbian adventure; and a film that treats the multi-coloured spectrum of modern sexual variety as something entirely normal and to be celebrated.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s an air of quiet death in this house”.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (“Lincoln“) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Groot Expectations.
James Gunn is back writing and directing the sequel to his surprise 2014 summer hit. And it might be a fresh mix tape slammed into the Walkman, but it’s much of the same again. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated The Art of Hiding in Books
Oct 6, 2017
Right, I'm going, to be honest here and say that I really struggled with this book and it was only the last few chapters that bumped this up to a three star for me.
Until then It was a two all the way, so sorry.
I'm obviously in a minority here in regards to how The art Of Hiding was perceived by myself as I've seen many positive reviews singing its praises and this is a well-written story it just personally wasn't really my cup of tea.
So I'm going to try and pinpoint what wasn't working for me as there was never one major thing that stood out specifically and also what was actually floating my boat.
So first things first I've never read anything by Amanda Prowse before, so was going in blind here.
Well, my initial impression was that The Art Of Hiding was really well written, the words flowed easily and the writing style was one that was easy to get lost in.
But here comes my main problem, the actual story itself, I found it a bit boring and somewhat one-dimensional.
I also wondered whether the author herself has ever lived on the breadline or was this her portrayal of what she thinks it would be like to be in that scenario.
I thought to myself why wasn't Nina McCarrick with no income not down the job centre and putting in an application, dare I say it for housing benefit.
She was meant to be on her arse after all.
It also annoyed me how living on the breadline was initially portrayed all doom and gloom and shitty childhoods, I didn't find it a realistic portrayal of how the other half lives it was very stereotypical in the way it depicted the rich and the poor.
I found it so hard to connect with the characters especially Nina who I found very whiny and almost childlike in some of her reactions.
Thank god for Tiggy, she was a breath of fresh air and also very forgiving considering the way she has been treated by her sister over the past few years.
I was so glad we had tiggy to add a bit of realism to this tale, I needed her as She was the one character I actually liked completely.
So a brief description of The Art Of Hiding is Nina McCarrick has the perfect life.
Until that is her husband Finn dies in a car crash leaving Nina and their Two sons in a mountain of debt and their whole lives unravelling.
Nina moves her boys back to the streets of Southampton where she grew up and The Art Of Hiding is really the story of how Nina and her children cope and grow as individuals as their world implodes.
As I said earlier I couldn't initially connect, but then a bit before the end I felt it and this is mainly what made me bump this up a star, I had a lump in my throat as Nina and her kids visit their former home with Tiggy, it was very poignant and sentimental and after pages of just reading, I actually started to feel the words written.
Overall though this book didn't make me feel good, On finishing, I felt rather sad and deflated and I like my fiction to leave me feeling rejuvenated, an emotional wreck, happy even sad, but not deflated and down that's a no-no.
I really do think I would enjoy other works of Amanda Prowse's as I really did like the writing style It was just the Art Of Hiding just didn't quite hit the mark for me.
So, In conclusion, this is a well-written story hence the three stars, It just personally wasn't quite for me, yourself well we are all diverse in our likes and dislikes so give it a go, I would so love to hear your take on this.
I would like to thank Netgalley, the publisher and the author for providing me with an arc of The Art Of Hiding By Amanda Prowse, this is my own voluntary, honest opinion.
Arc Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Until then It was a two all the way, so sorry.
I'm obviously in a minority here in regards to how The art Of Hiding was perceived by myself as I've seen many positive reviews singing its praises and this is a well-written story it just personally wasn't really my cup of tea.
So I'm going to try and pinpoint what wasn't working for me as there was never one major thing that stood out specifically and also what was actually floating my boat.
So first things first I've never read anything by Amanda Prowse before, so was going in blind here.
Well, my initial impression was that The Art Of Hiding was really well written, the words flowed easily and the writing style was one that was easy to get lost in.
But here comes my main problem, the actual story itself, I found it a bit boring and somewhat one-dimensional.
I also wondered whether the author herself has ever lived on the breadline or was this her portrayal of what she thinks it would be like to be in that scenario.
I thought to myself why wasn't Nina McCarrick with no income not down the job centre and putting in an application, dare I say it for housing benefit.
She was meant to be on her arse after all.
It also annoyed me how living on the breadline was initially portrayed all doom and gloom and shitty childhoods, I didn't find it a realistic portrayal of how the other half lives it was very stereotypical in the way it depicted the rich and the poor.
I found it so hard to connect with the characters especially Nina who I found very whiny and almost childlike in some of her reactions.
Thank god for Tiggy, she was a breath of fresh air and also very forgiving considering the way she has been treated by her sister over the past few years.
I was so glad we had tiggy to add a bit of realism to this tale, I needed her as She was the one character I actually liked completely.
So a brief description of The Art Of Hiding is Nina McCarrick has the perfect life.
Until that is her husband Finn dies in a car crash leaving Nina and their Two sons in a mountain of debt and their whole lives unravelling.
Nina moves her boys back to the streets of Southampton where she grew up and The Art Of Hiding is really the story of how Nina and her children cope and grow as individuals as their world implodes.
As I said earlier I couldn't initially connect, but then a bit before the end I felt it and this is mainly what made me bump this up a star, I had a lump in my throat as Nina and her kids visit their former home with Tiggy, it was very poignant and sentimental and after pages of just reading, I actually started to feel the words written.
Overall though this book didn't make me feel good, On finishing, I felt rather sad and deflated and I like my fiction to leave me feeling rejuvenated, an emotional wreck, happy even sad, but not deflated and down that's a no-no.
I really do think I would enjoy other works of Amanda Prowse's as I really did like the writing style It was just the Art Of Hiding just didn't quite hit the mark for me.
So, In conclusion, this is a well-written story hence the three stars, It just personally wasn't quite for me, yourself well we are all diverse in our likes and dislikes so give it a go, I would so love to hear your take on this.
I would like to thank Netgalley, the publisher and the author for providing me with an arc of The Art Of Hiding By Amanda Prowse, this is my own voluntary, honest opinion.
Arc Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Sinner - Season 1 in TV
Nov 30, 2017 (Updated Nov 30, 2017)
Barely any of the characters were sympathetic or relatable (3 more)
The ending was dissatisfying
So many wasted episodes
It was only 9 episodes long, but it felt far longer
A Sin That This Wasn't Better
This show came highly recommended to me by sources that I usually trust, but it turned out to be a total let down. The show opens with a young family going to the beach. The mother who is played by Jessica Biel, suddenly walks over to another young man on the beach and stabs him to death in front of over a hundred witnesses in broad daylight. She is then arrested and the show spends the next 8 episodes clumsily trying to explain why she committed this heinous act.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Dead Perfect in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Shannah is going to die. She has a blood disease that none of the doctors can identify, and she only has months to live. She’s on her last month, possibly her last week… she hates to think it’s her last day, but it sure feels like it. She has been watching the strange tall, dark (and hansom) man for several months, and is convinced that he is a vampire (though she’s not exactly sane when she makes that decision). She goes to him seeking immortality, but collapses in near death on his front porch. When she wakes up, she feels better. What did he do that healed her? She’s not a vampire, but even the doctors couldn’t heal her… then there’s the fact that she’s pretty sure that she’s falling in love with him. but Ronan’s healing doesn’t last forever… and Shannah has to make a hard choice.
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz