Search
Search results
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Other Mrs. in Books
Apr 4, 2020
Mental illness done correctly (1 more)
Addictive
Mental illness.
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Why is this even prefaced everywhere with Fast & Furious? Apart from a couple of characters and the fact there are cars with a crapload of action they aren't really the same thing.
Hattie Shaw and her MI6 team have secured a virus that could threaten everyone if it gets into the wrong hands. In a surprise attacked by Brixton, an enhanced "bad guy", her entire team is killed and she has to make a quick decision.
As the story of the missing vial gets out handlers call in their top assets to retrieve it. The trouble is that they hate each other and working together isn't something that's going to work. Hobbs goes looking for Hattie on the streets and Shaw heads to her flat, both set some action they weren't expecting to, highlighting just what they're up against.
As an offshoot from the Fast & Furious franchise you expect the action, but Hobbs & Shaw takes a much bigger step towards comedy, which thankfully both Johnson and Statham are good at. Individually they'll get me to see a film, I might wish I hadn't when I come out of it, but you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a consistent result when it comes to the acting.
The two of them together are fun and they bounce off each other with impeccable timing, but there might be just a little bit too much insulting back and forth thrown into this one. It's not that it's bad, it's just that when it happens it can occasionally feel too long. It's almost as if they told them to improvise and they'd cut out a whole load of it and then never did. [One of my favourite bits of them together in the film is at the beginning of the trailer above.]
Vanessa Kirby as Shaw's sister Hattie is a bit more sensible than the leading men, that doesn't mean she's any less engaged in the action though. Right from the off they're showing her as tough and no-nonsense which fits in with the family characteristics. You get some great glimpses of the Shaw kids showing shared traits and it's really nice to see that link on the screen. Outside of the action and the family moments she sadly doesn't feel like a very well-formed character, there are several inconsistencies in her that I found to be confusing. You'd think one of those would be the age gap between her and Deckard, but honestly, until I saw some people mention it online I hadn't noticed it... it's a summer blockbuster... who's watching for those sorts of technicalities?!
Our bad guy Brixton, portrayed by Idris Elba is... yummy. I don't feel like there's much to say about Brixton, he kicks ass, he's got great tech and there's a good history with Shaw... but... he didn't really feel like a bad guy. Eteon certainly felt like an evil empire, but Brixton is just a minion in the grand scheme of things. I have my theories about Eteon, but that would mean major spoilers I'm afraid. I imagine we'll see more of them in the next one.
We get another wonderful pop up from Helen Mirren. Yeeeeeess, Queen! She's brilliant as always. There are a few cameos, and I'm impressed they managed to keep them secret. It was a fun discovery and definitely added to the humour of the whole thing, had you taken them out of the mix then you would have been left a much more "sensible" action film, but they went with it and it was certainly entertaining.
Obviously there's a lot of action, in a lot of different scenes. As ridiculous as it is, I did like the London chase that happens shortly after the jog down the building that you see in the trailer. It includes some good jaw-dropping moments and ends with a particularly satisfying moment. As fun as this sequence was, it does include the most dubious bit of CGI in the whole film... watch for that bike.
My other favourite scene is the finale, the whole thing is kind of long but specifically I'm thinking about Hobbs, Shaw and Brixton facing off. Even before going into the film you know exactly what needs to happen to get to the resolution, so when they get to that point you're sat going "about time!" As the storm sets in we get an amazing sequence with slow-mo of the three of them fighting in the rain. It was immense... some may say daft, but that's totally why I turned up for it. There's also some great glitching of Brixton's tech that I thought worked really well with everything. My only issue is that there's one moment where Jason Statham appears to genuinely smile and it feels completely out of character.
There are some things I want to mention before I finish.
- There feels like a lot of product placement happening throughout, including for things that aren't even real products.
- You do not... I repeat... DO NOT drive by a Greggs without stopping for a chicken bake.
Let's face it, if you even remotely enjoy action and comedy together then you're going to be enjoying this movie. You don't need to switch your brain on to watch this, it's just pure entertainment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/hobbs-shaw-movie-review.html
Hattie Shaw and her MI6 team have secured a virus that could threaten everyone if it gets into the wrong hands. In a surprise attacked by Brixton, an enhanced "bad guy", her entire team is killed and she has to make a quick decision.
As the story of the missing vial gets out handlers call in their top assets to retrieve it. The trouble is that they hate each other and working together isn't something that's going to work. Hobbs goes looking for Hattie on the streets and Shaw heads to her flat, both set some action they weren't expecting to, highlighting just what they're up against.
As an offshoot from the Fast & Furious franchise you expect the action, but Hobbs & Shaw takes a much bigger step towards comedy, which thankfully both Johnson and Statham are good at. Individually they'll get me to see a film, I might wish I hadn't when I come out of it, but you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a consistent result when it comes to the acting.
The two of them together are fun and they bounce off each other with impeccable timing, but there might be just a little bit too much insulting back and forth thrown into this one. It's not that it's bad, it's just that when it happens it can occasionally feel too long. It's almost as if they told them to improvise and they'd cut out a whole load of it and then never did. [One of my favourite bits of them together in the film is at the beginning of the trailer above.]
Vanessa Kirby as Shaw's sister Hattie is a bit more sensible than the leading men, that doesn't mean she's any less engaged in the action though. Right from the off they're showing her as tough and no-nonsense which fits in with the family characteristics. You get some great glimpses of the Shaw kids showing shared traits and it's really nice to see that link on the screen. Outside of the action and the family moments she sadly doesn't feel like a very well-formed character, there are several inconsistencies in her that I found to be confusing. You'd think one of those would be the age gap between her and Deckard, but honestly, until I saw some people mention it online I hadn't noticed it... it's a summer blockbuster... who's watching for those sorts of technicalities?!
Our bad guy Brixton, portrayed by Idris Elba is... yummy. I don't feel like there's much to say about Brixton, he kicks ass, he's got great tech and there's a good history with Shaw... but... he didn't really feel like a bad guy. Eteon certainly felt like an evil empire, but Brixton is just a minion in the grand scheme of things. I have my theories about Eteon, but that would mean major spoilers I'm afraid. I imagine we'll see more of them in the next one.
We get another wonderful pop up from Helen Mirren. Yeeeeeess, Queen! She's brilliant as always. There are a few cameos, and I'm impressed they managed to keep them secret. It was a fun discovery and definitely added to the humour of the whole thing, had you taken them out of the mix then you would have been left a much more "sensible" action film, but they went with it and it was certainly entertaining.
Obviously there's a lot of action, in a lot of different scenes. As ridiculous as it is, I did like the London chase that happens shortly after the jog down the building that you see in the trailer. It includes some good jaw-dropping moments and ends with a particularly satisfying moment. As fun as this sequence was, it does include the most dubious bit of CGI in the whole film... watch for that bike.
My other favourite scene is the finale, the whole thing is kind of long but specifically I'm thinking about Hobbs, Shaw and Brixton facing off. Even before going into the film you know exactly what needs to happen to get to the resolution, so when they get to that point you're sat going "about time!" As the storm sets in we get an amazing sequence with slow-mo of the three of them fighting in the rain. It was immense... some may say daft, but that's totally why I turned up for it. There's also some great glitching of Brixton's tech that I thought worked really well with everything. My only issue is that there's one moment where Jason Statham appears to genuinely smile and it feels completely out of character.
There are some things I want to mention before I finish.
- There feels like a lot of product placement happening throughout, including for things that aren't even real products.
- You do not... I repeat... DO NOT drive by a Greggs without stopping for a chicken bake.
Let's face it, if you even remotely enjoy action and comedy together then you're going to be enjoying this movie. You don't need to switch your brain on to watch this, it's just pure entertainment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/hobbs-shaw-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Rachel McAdams and Dan Stevens steal most of the scenes (1 more)
A real feelgood movie that spoofs the unspoofable pretty well
My lovely farce
Will Ferrell's output over the last few years has been decidedly patchy. I have to go back to "Get Hard" to find one of his movies that really got to my funny bone. But this latest Netflix offering hits the spot for me.
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
First off I want to address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the serial killer in the room. Kudos to Cineworld for always engaging in dressing up banter for their movies, but honestly, I don't need to be tormented by them during the movie too. We're all familiar with the hovering member of staff who checks the screens during the performance. When the titles started to role on Halloween I was aware of the lurking figure, unlike other times though when I glanced out of the corner of my eye I wasn't greeted with the friendly face of an employee but rather the mask-clad face of a serial killer. At least he wasn't creeping up on me otherwise I would have unleashed the power of my flying handbag... you try and scare people there WILL be consequences! Saying that I would love them to re-release Scream so I could dress up as Ghostface and just tilt my head at people.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Turn of The Key in Books
Sep 26, 2019
I am a huge fan of Ruth Ware. Even though I wasn't a fan of her book The Death of Mrs. Westaway, I loved The Lying Game and In a Dark, Dark Wood. When I found out about The Turn of the Key, I knew I had to read it as soon as possible. It was much better than I thought it was going to be!
The synopsis of the book had such a spooky feel, and I loved the plot of The Turn of the Key. Rowan isn't very happy at her job at Little Nippers, a daycare where she looks after babies and toddlers. Plus, it doesn't pay very well. When she comes across an ad to be a live in nanny for a rich couple's children for a fantastic sum, she jumps a the chance. She's surprised when she gets the job, but she is ecstatic. Heatherbrae, the house where she will nanny, is a smart house complete with an app that controls everything in the house. When her employers have to leave the next day, she is thrown into her job as a nanny of Maddie, Ellie, and Petra. Strange things start happening such as being woken up in the middle of the night with music blaring from the speakers all over the house and lights being turned on up to full brightness. Items go missing from their original place, and Maddie is a nightmare child to look after. Rowan begins to second guess her nannying job at Heatherbrae, but she decides to stick it out. Unfortunately, a child ends up dead, and Rowan ends up in prison for the child's murder even though she swears she's innocent. Was Rowan framed or was it the work of something far more sinister?
I thought everything flowed smoothly, and The Turn of the Key definitely had me spooked. I kept trying to guess what was going on. The Turn of the Key hints that it could be something paranormal throughout the story, so I kept wondering if it was some sort of ghost or if it was a person. I'd also try to guess who was behind it all, but I was wrong. There are a few plot twists and one major plot twist that blindsided me completely. It was a plot twist that made me actually made my draw drop! I doubt any reader would have or will predict that plot twist. One minor thing that I was left pondering over had to do with the ending when all is revealed. I won't give any spoilers away, but I will say it's never mentioned how a person can get into a certain sealed off room. That's all I will say on that matter because I don't want to give too much away. Other than that, every other question I had was answered by the last page. As for the pacing, it is done perfectly. Not once did I feel as if The Turn of the Key slowed down at all. This is a book that grabs your hand and pulls you along without letting go!
The characters in The Turn of the Key all felt very realistic and fleshed out well enough for everything to be believable. Rowan is a very likable character and kudos for her for actually staying on as a nanny at Heatherbrae when everything went pear shaped. Even though some of the kids were hard to love, she still wanted to do what's right by them. I would have high tailed it out of there quickly if I was in her position! I felt like she dealt with everything to the best of her ability. I admired Jack and how he was willing to help Rowan out. He came across as a very caring man. It was obvious that the character of Jean loved the children at Heatherbrae which made me love her even if she wasn't featured very much. Sandra and Bill (the owners of Heatherbrae and Rowan's employers) were written well. They weren't very good parents I felt. They were too busy with their work to really know their children. Unfortunately, I know this happens in real life too. Maddie had her issues, but I loved how she was written. I felt bad for her because I felt like she was the black sheep of the family. I also felt bad for the oldest daughter Rhiannon. She was another one that seemed to have issues, but I loved her vulnerability at her lowest point. I loved the dialogue between Rowan and Rhiannon. Petra was just adorable, but Ellie was my favorite. She was easily swayed by her sister, Maddie, but I loved when she was away from Maddie and was able to be her own person. I felt she was just the sweetest little girl!
Trigger warnings for The Turn of the Key include profanity, drinking, underage drinking, lying, blackmail, a child's death, marital cheating, and mentions of sex (although not graphic).
Overall, The Turn of the Key is such a well written book. The plot sucks you in from the beginning, and the characters are all very interesting! I would definitely recommend The Turn of the Key by Ruth Ware to everyone age 16+ who enjoy a fantastic psychological read!
The synopsis of the book had such a spooky feel, and I loved the plot of The Turn of the Key. Rowan isn't very happy at her job at Little Nippers, a daycare where she looks after babies and toddlers. Plus, it doesn't pay very well. When she comes across an ad to be a live in nanny for a rich couple's children for a fantastic sum, she jumps a the chance. She's surprised when she gets the job, but she is ecstatic. Heatherbrae, the house where she will nanny, is a smart house complete with an app that controls everything in the house. When her employers have to leave the next day, she is thrown into her job as a nanny of Maddie, Ellie, and Petra. Strange things start happening such as being woken up in the middle of the night with music blaring from the speakers all over the house and lights being turned on up to full brightness. Items go missing from their original place, and Maddie is a nightmare child to look after. Rowan begins to second guess her nannying job at Heatherbrae, but she decides to stick it out. Unfortunately, a child ends up dead, and Rowan ends up in prison for the child's murder even though she swears she's innocent. Was Rowan framed or was it the work of something far more sinister?
I thought everything flowed smoothly, and The Turn of the Key definitely had me spooked. I kept trying to guess what was going on. The Turn of the Key hints that it could be something paranormal throughout the story, so I kept wondering if it was some sort of ghost or if it was a person. I'd also try to guess who was behind it all, but I was wrong. There are a few plot twists and one major plot twist that blindsided me completely. It was a plot twist that made me actually made my draw drop! I doubt any reader would have or will predict that plot twist. One minor thing that I was left pondering over had to do with the ending when all is revealed. I won't give any spoilers away, but I will say it's never mentioned how a person can get into a certain sealed off room. That's all I will say on that matter because I don't want to give too much away. Other than that, every other question I had was answered by the last page. As for the pacing, it is done perfectly. Not once did I feel as if The Turn of the Key slowed down at all. This is a book that grabs your hand and pulls you along without letting go!
The characters in The Turn of the Key all felt very realistic and fleshed out well enough for everything to be believable. Rowan is a very likable character and kudos for her for actually staying on as a nanny at Heatherbrae when everything went pear shaped. Even though some of the kids were hard to love, she still wanted to do what's right by them. I would have high tailed it out of there quickly if I was in her position! I felt like she dealt with everything to the best of her ability. I admired Jack and how he was willing to help Rowan out. He came across as a very caring man. It was obvious that the character of Jean loved the children at Heatherbrae which made me love her even if she wasn't featured very much. Sandra and Bill (the owners of Heatherbrae and Rowan's employers) were written well. They weren't very good parents I felt. They were too busy with their work to really know their children. Unfortunately, I know this happens in real life too. Maddie had her issues, but I loved how she was written. I felt bad for her because I felt like she was the black sheep of the family. I also felt bad for the oldest daughter Rhiannon. She was another one that seemed to have issues, but I loved her vulnerability at her lowest point. I loved the dialogue between Rowan and Rhiannon. Petra was just adorable, but Ellie was my favorite. She was easily swayed by her sister, Maddie, but I loved when she was away from Maddie and was able to be her own person. I felt she was just the sweetest little girl!
Trigger warnings for The Turn of the Key include profanity, drinking, underage drinking, lying, blackmail, a child's death, marital cheating, and mentions of sex (although not graphic).
Overall, The Turn of the Key is such a well written book. The plot sucks you in from the beginning, and the characters are all very interesting! I would definitely recommend The Turn of the Key by Ruth Ware to everyone age 16+ who enjoy a fantastic psychological read!
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Her Wicked Ways in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Genre: Historical
Word Count: 101, 790
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.62/ 5 stars
My rating: 4/ 5 stars
This book has a slightly shaky start, like most romance novels do, but it pulls me in pretty quickly. It starts off with Montgomery “Fox” Foxcroft committing highway robbery to save an orphanage. Yeah, starts off like your run-of-the-mill soap opera.
The job is supposed to be simple for Fox. Rob a corrupt MP to support the orphanage he runs. Unbeknownst to him, this MP is carrying something even more precious than money. He’s transporting a disgraced heiress named Miranda Sinclair. Miranda’s a beautiful woman who distracts Fox so much that he forgets he’s committing a crime to save some kids and ends up making out with her. Not his finest moment. But it does give him an idea. To seduce Miranda and marry her for her money. But when she starts volunteering at his orphanage, he realizes that she’s not just a spoiled heiress, but also likeable, capable, and someone that he might even grown to love.
This story is fantastic! I re-read it when I realized I hadn’t written a review for it, and it was good even the second time around. Both Miranda and Fox are excellent and the chemistry between them is spot-on.
Miranda comes off as entitled at first, and she is, but she grows out of that pretty quickly. In truth, she’s a very strong person who regularly rebels against the restricting rules of London Society, because come on, why would anyone want to live by those rules? Despite everyone calling her incompetent and useless, she’s smart and very capable. She steals a kiss out of Fox the first time she meets him, and she raises more money for the orphanage in one night than Fox managed to raise in an entire year.
Where I shall stay when we get there. Is this Stratham’s house adequate?” (Her brother asked)
“Yes, more than. You’ll be quite comfortable. Are you sure you’re allowed to stay there?”
“Ah, sweet sister, when will you realize the rules are not the same for you and me?”
But Miranda knew all too well. Perhaps that was why she always broke them.
The only irritating thing about Miranda is that she bends easily to her parents’ will. And while I get that they are her parents, it frustrates me to no end that she complied so quickly, even when it hurt Fox and she didn’t agree with them to begin with. I also hate that she didn’t figure out that Fox was the highwayman. Sure, she might not associate a random, masked stranger with the impoverished owner of an orphanage right away. But then she meets the highwayman again… and then sees Fox again…. she knows she feels the same lust with both of them, and she still doesn’t figure it out? Oh please, she’s smarter than that.
Fox is incredibly lovable, despite his ridiculous jealousy over just about every man that Miranda comes in contact with. He gets jealous over Miranda’s former lover who’s so unimportant he doesn’t even turn up, and he gets jealous over Stratham. He even gets jealous over one of his charges when Miranda compliments the boy’s new haircut. Possessive much?
However, I do like how wonderfully insecure Fox is. Despite being confident in most areas of his life, and refusing to think people in higher class were better than him, Fox is constantly unsure around Miranda. He thinks she’s totally out of his league, even at the end.
“That you would give yourself to me is incredibly humbling.”
A twinge of embarrassment heated her face. “Why?”
He smiled. “Because you’re Miranda. A goddess to my mere mortality. I am a beast beside you.”
Damn. Montgomery Foxcroft sure knows how to woo a woman.
And he is so hopelessly in love with her. Even when he was desperate for money, he wasn’t willing to force Miranda to marry him by compromising her because he didn’t want her to hate him. And even though his original intention in courting her was to get her money, he started appreciating her for much more. Unlike her parents, he saw her for the brilliant woman she was and was quick to defend her to anyone who said otherwise.
Love.
The word drove a knife clean through his heart. Did he love her? He didn’t know, but he wanted her for more than money. More than desire. He wanted her here. With him. With all of them. He’d never seen the children so happy. So light. He’d never felt so happy or light—and that said a lot given his cursed financial woes.
He also doesn’t ever want her change. Unlike everyone else in this story, including her brother, the only immediate family member she has who is remotely nice to her, Fox doesn’t think she has to change, and doesn’t even want her to.
“You’re staring at me like I’m food again.” His words heightened her arousal and further emboldened her.
She feasted on his male beauty. “I’ve never seen anything as delicious as you.”
“Christ, Miranda. Ladies don’t talk like that.”
She traced her fingers around his nipples and watched them tighten. Her own hardened in response. “You don’t like it?”
He swallowed audibly. “I like it fine.”
Word Count: 101, 790
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.62/ 5 stars
My rating: 4/ 5 stars
This book has a slightly shaky start, like most romance novels do, but it pulls me in pretty quickly. It starts off with Montgomery “Fox” Foxcroft committing highway robbery to save an orphanage. Yeah, starts off like your run-of-the-mill soap opera.
The job is supposed to be simple for Fox. Rob a corrupt MP to support the orphanage he runs. Unbeknownst to him, this MP is carrying something even more precious than money. He’s transporting a disgraced heiress named Miranda Sinclair. Miranda’s a beautiful woman who distracts Fox so much that he forgets he’s committing a crime to save some kids and ends up making out with her. Not his finest moment. But it does give him an idea. To seduce Miranda and marry her for her money. But when she starts volunteering at his orphanage, he realizes that she’s not just a spoiled heiress, but also likeable, capable, and someone that he might even grown to love.
This story is fantastic! I re-read it when I realized I hadn’t written a review for it, and it was good even the second time around. Both Miranda and Fox are excellent and the chemistry between them is spot-on.
Miranda comes off as entitled at first, and she is, but she grows out of that pretty quickly. In truth, she’s a very strong person who regularly rebels against the restricting rules of London Society, because come on, why would anyone want to live by those rules? Despite everyone calling her incompetent and useless, she’s smart and very capable. She steals a kiss out of Fox the first time she meets him, and she raises more money for the orphanage in one night than Fox managed to raise in an entire year.
Where I shall stay when we get there. Is this Stratham’s house adequate?” (Her brother asked)
“Yes, more than. You’ll be quite comfortable. Are you sure you’re allowed to stay there?”
“Ah, sweet sister, when will you realize the rules are not the same for you and me?”
But Miranda knew all too well. Perhaps that was why she always broke them.
The only irritating thing about Miranda is that she bends easily to her parents’ will. And while I get that they are her parents, it frustrates me to no end that she complied so quickly, even when it hurt Fox and she didn’t agree with them to begin with. I also hate that she didn’t figure out that Fox was the highwayman. Sure, she might not associate a random, masked stranger with the impoverished owner of an orphanage right away. But then she meets the highwayman again… and then sees Fox again…. she knows she feels the same lust with both of them, and she still doesn’t figure it out? Oh please, she’s smarter than that.
Fox is incredibly lovable, despite his ridiculous jealousy over just about every man that Miranda comes in contact with. He gets jealous over Miranda’s former lover who’s so unimportant he doesn’t even turn up, and he gets jealous over Stratham. He even gets jealous over one of his charges when Miranda compliments the boy’s new haircut. Possessive much?
However, I do like how wonderfully insecure Fox is. Despite being confident in most areas of his life, and refusing to think people in higher class were better than him, Fox is constantly unsure around Miranda. He thinks she’s totally out of his league, even at the end.
“That you would give yourself to me is incredibly humbling.”
A twinge of embarrassment heated her face. “Why?”
He smiled. “Because you’re Miranda. A goddess to my mere mortality. I am a beast beside you.”
Damn. Montgomery Foxcroft sure knows how to woo a woman.
And he is so hopelessly in love with her. Even when he was desperate for money, he wasn’t willing to force Miranda to marry him by compromising her because he didn’t want her to hate him. And even though his original intention in courting her was to get her money, he started appreciating her for much more. Unlike her parents, he saw her for the brilliant woman she was and was quick to defend her to anyone who said otherwise.
Love.
The word drove a knife clean through his heart. Did he love her? He didn’t know, but he wanted her for more than money. More than desire. He wanted her here. With him. With all of them. He’d never seen the children so happy. So light. He’d never felt so happy or light—and that said a lot given his cursed financial woes.
He also doesn’t ever want her change. Unlike everyone else in this story, including her brother, the only immediate family member she has who is remotely nice to her, Fox doesn’t think she has to change, and doesn’t even want her to.
“You’re staring at me like I’m food again.” His words heightened her arousal and further emboldened her.
She feasted on his male beauty. “I’ve never seen anything as delicious as you.”
“Christ, Miranda. Ladies don’t talk like that.”
She traced her fingers around his nipples and watched them tighten. Her own hardened in response. “You don’t like it?”
He swallowed audibly. “I like it fine.”
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been 84 years... Well, not quite but that long, but near enough.
Dani wakes in a facility, chained to a bed with no clue how she got there after a disaster that devastated her home. She soon meets four other patients, all teens with mutant powers that have been gathered to learn how to control their powers so they can safely join others like them in another facility. But with Dani's arrival, everyone is about to learn what real nightmares are made of.
I sat and stared at this blank space for a while, I have been looking forward to New Mutants for so long and I've been contemplating if that anticipation has affected my enjoyment of it now that I've finally seen it... sadly, I don't think it did.
The promise that this film had in the trailer was pretty big, it looked much darker, a lot scarier, and I was excited for such a big diversion from what we're used to. Yes, the final product was definitely different but, as always, the trailer oversells aspects that aren't really representative of the completed film.
Watching New Mutants was very familiar. There's a certain amount of X-Men/mutant recognition, but there's also touches of Glass (unfortunate considering NM was scheduled for release before it originally) and Runaways. Without a bigger hook in the story it started to feel like an ironing film... something you put on while you have other things to do. Even with all new material it lacked any punch to give it some thrill.
The film is very much an origin story for these characters rather than something in its own right. Similar to Birds Of Prey you've got a lot of new people to meet and learn about, but in BoP this is done with a traditional base story and the characters on top and here everything is new... powers, characters, environments... that excess of new information is not quite as cohesive. In the hospital environment they're all understandably at odds with the doctor and each other, but that seems to change at the drop of a hat for no logical reason.
Out of everyone I was only really impressed with Henry Zaga's portrayal of Roberto da Costa, that was probably because of the humour in his role that broke the seriousness of everything around him. There were solid dramatic moments from him too but the role of Berto did suffer a knock with one of my other issues, and that was the seemingly shoehorned sex. We get it, teens are horny in films, but why was it necessary at all? Berto's storyline could easily have been adapted into something different and Rahne's backstory seems to have been twisted slightly to include it when there was a perfectly good story there already.
I'm not massively familiar with these characters outside of the film, Berto/Sunspot was in Days Of Future Past but I didn't realise this connection until afterwards. I thought it was a shame that there wasn't really a crossover with the rest of the universe when there were opportunities all over the place. Rahne is connected to Moira MacTaggert, Sam has mutant siblings, Illyana is Colossus' sister and the Essex Corporation is likely the same company that ran the orphanage in Deadpool 2... yet the only mentions of the outside universe are thrown in and felt like they were added without much thought and only because we'd expect them to say something about it.
I'm sorry, at this point my rant is just flowing... stay with me a little longer.
What New Mutants felt like it was missing was a villain, which is odd when there are so many bad guys. You have Essex Corp, but there's not enough about them to be anything more than a thought for the future. We're then left with the inner demons from Dani's mutant power, but they're technically undefeatable because they're a creation... so this just makes the film a bonding exercise between the five of them. Something to contemplate though... if they're experiencing their own demons because of Dani's power then how is it that Illyana's smileys go for Berto and Sam when she isn't there? Surely they should vanish when she does? I'm going to have to do more reading about this team, if you know about them then please do give me a crash course.
There are still some good effects and the idea of a darker tone to the universe has a lot of potential, but let's face it, we're never likely to see it again... though the end of the film would like you to believe otherwise with its walk off into the sunset-esque moment. They went full Artemis Fowl with us and lined up a sequel... we're not getting a sequel out of that no matter how much potential they have in the wings... surely?
I still vaguely enjoyed watching New Mutants, if I had my Unlimited Card I would be seeing it again, I wouldn't even have minded getting this as a VOD title because I would have got a few viewings in for my money... but let's face it, this felt more like a double length feature at the start of a new TV series than a film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-new-mutants-movie-review-spoilers.html
Dani wakes in a facility, chained to a bed with no clue how she got there after a disaster that devastated her home. She soon meets four other patients, all teens with mutant powers that have been gathered to learn how to control their powers so they can safely join others like them in another facility. But with Dani's arrival, everyone is about to learn what real nightmares are made of.
I sat and stared at this blank space for a while, I have been looking forward to New Mutants for so long and I've been contemplating if that anticipation has affected my enjoyment of it now that I've finally seen it... sadly, I don't think it did.
The promise that this film had in the trailer was pretty big, it looked much darker, a lot scarier, and I was excited for such a big diversion from what we're used to. Yes, the final product was definitely different but, as always, the trailer oversells aspects that aren't really representative of the completed film.
Watching New Mutants was very familiar. There's a certain amount of X-Men/mutant recognition, but there's also touches of Glass (unfortunate considering NM was scheduled for release before it originally) and Runaways. Without a bigger hook in the story it started to feel like an ironing film... something you put on while you have other things to do. Even with all new material it lacked any punch to give it some thrill.
The film is very much an origin story for these characters rather than something in its own right. Similar to Birds Of Prey you've got a lot of new people to meet and learn about, but in BoP this is done with a traditional base story and the characters on top and here everything is new... powers, characters, environments... that excess of new information is not quite as cohesive. In the hospital environment they're all understandably at odds with the doctor and each other, but that seems to change at the drop of a hat for no logical reason.
Out of everyone I was only really impressed with Henry Zaga's portrayal of Roberto da Costa, that was probably because of the humour in his role that broke the seriousness of everything around him. There were solid dramatic moments from him too but the role of Berto did suffer a knock with one of my other issues, and that was the seemingly shoehorned sex. We get it, teens are horny in films, but why was it necessary at all? Berto's storyline could easily have been adapted into something different and Rahne's backstory seems to have been twisted slightly to include it when there was a perfectly good story there already.
I'm not massively familiar with these characters outside of the film, Berto/Sunspot was in Days Of Future Past but I didn't realise this connection until afterwards. I thought it was a shame that there wasn't really a crossover with the rest of the universe when there were opportunities all over the place. Rahne is connected to Moira MacTaggert, Sam has mutant siblings, Illyana is Colossus' sister and the Essex Corporation is likely the same company that ran the orphanage in Deadpool 2... yet the only mentions of the outside universe are thrown in and felt like they were added without much thought and only because we'd expect them to say something about it.
I'm sorry, at this point my rant is just flowing... stay with me a little longer.
What New Mutants felt like it was missing was a villain, which is odd when there are so many bad guys. You have Essex Corp, but there's not enough about them to be anything more than a thought for the future. We're then left with the inner demons from Dani's mutant power, but they're technically undefeatable because they're a creation... so this just makes the film a bonding exercise between the five of them. Something to contemplate though... if they're experiencing their own demons because of Dani's power then how is it that Illyana's smileys go for Berto and Sam when she isn't there? Surely they should vanish when she does? I'm going to have to do more reading about this team, if you know about them then please do give me a crash course.
There are still some good effects and the idea of a darker tone to the universe has a lot of potential, but let's face it, we're never likely to see it again... though the end of the film would like you to believe otherwise with its walk off into the sunset-esque moment. They went full Artemis Fowl with us and lined up a sequel... we're not getting a sequel out of that no matter how much potential they have in the wings... surely?
I still vaguely enjoyed watching New Mutants, if I had my Unlimited Card I would be seeing it again, I wouldn't even have minded getting this as a VOD title because I would have got a few viewings in for my money... but let's face it, this felt more like a double length feature at the start of a new TV series than a film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-new-mutants-movie-review-spoilers.html
An Amish Christmas Bakery (4 Stories)
Beth Wiseman, Amy Clipston, Kelly Irvin and Kathleen Fuller
8.7
Rate It
Book
Cookies and Cheer by Amy Clipston: Alyssa Byler dreaming of the next holiday window display for...
Amish Romance Amish Fiction