Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Feb 21, 2020
Anya Taylor-Joy.... mesmerising (2 more)
Gorgeous to look at; stunning locations and costumes
Witty and well-observed debut script
Simply Sublime
I loved the look of "Emma" from the trailer. And I was not disappointed. It is a simply sublime piece of comic entertainment.
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Coping with Chloe
Book
Anna and Chloe are twins. They share everything. Even Chloe's terrible accident hasn't split them...
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Erotic Stories for Punjabi Widows in Books
Sep 24, 2020
When I started reading this book, I really didn't know what to expect from it. The name of the book was simply unbelievable. The more I read it, the more it shocked me, and I know for sure, that after reading this book, I will never look the same at South Asian aunties and the community. The description of the book is quite accurate. British born Punjabi Nikki gets a job in gurdwara in Southall, London, to teach reading and writing to Punjabi widows, who are mostly from villages. She quickly notices that these widows are not interested in learning how to write, instead, they are very keen to share their erotic fantasies with other women. While teaching the widows, Nikki learns, that Southall, and the community itself are hiding many dirty secrets of its own.
I found the characters of this book very amusing, and at the same time very close to my heart. I loved how author put two opposites in the book; Nikki, who wants to live her life and make her own choices, and her sister Mindi-who still wants things done the traditional way. All the widows, who participated in this book, were really interesting and diverse personalities. They all had a story to tell, not only erotic one, but the one of their life as well. I do know quite a lot of South Asian people, and the way author described them in the book is very accurate. I am not including their fantasies, but the part of how they present themselves to society, is quite accurate. Respect of the family is the main value in Asian society, and all people try to maintain that. That’s why Nikki is kind of rebel against traditional values, which is sometimes quite shameful in the eye of the community. Everything in this book sounds very real and believable: characters, plot and the way author described places used in this book, it’s unbelievably accurate. I liked that author included more than one character in this book, and told the story from Nikki’s and her employer’s Kulvinder’s perspective. Kulvinder has huge influence in the book, with the tragic story of her daughter Maya, who died very young. Through the views of Nikki and Kulvinder, the story of the book unfolds very nicely, and keeps the suspense going.
The plot of the book is very original; nevertheless, it tells couple of different stories at the same time. Most of the action in this book happens in Southall, London. As the author said in the book, she lived in Southall, while she was studying at university. That explains why she wrote about this place with such detail. She described every corner and street with great accuracy, and beautifully presented the spirit of that place. How do I know? I visited that place many times, that’s why the similarity shocked me. This book tells not only the story of widow’s fantasies, but also involves murders, and many dark secrets of the society itself, and that really made the book amusing, twisty and hard to put down. The more Nikki gets involved with the widows, the more this story turns and thickens. Author discussed a lot of important topics in this book, such as: honour killings; family relations between parents and children, and what honour and respect of the family means in Asian society; immigration and adjustment problems; and many more. Author showed really nicely, that women, even after marriage remain women, and that after washing dishes, cooking and cleaning houses, they have their wishes and desires, which are not always fulfilled. Let me tell you one thing, those erotic stories they tell are really kinky, and has wide variety of action going on, so it is definitely not for young people to read.
So, as I mentioned before, and as it is obvious from the name of the book, it contains so foul language but at the same time is very comic and funny to read. This book is quite detailed, but it doesn’t make it boring, it helps to understand the situations better. I really liked, that the chapters were divided, so it was easier and more fun to read it. The ending of the book is nice and ended the book really well, by putting all characters at peace. To conclude, I really enjoyed this layered, funny and very beautifully written book and I do recommend reading it to everyone, who would like to have an insight of South Asian community, and get involved with those great topics which author brought up in this book.
I found the characters of this book very amusing, and at the same time very close to my heart. I loved how author put two opposites in the book; Nikki, who wants to live her life and make her own choices, and her sister Mindi-who still wants things done the traditional way. All the widows, who participated in this book, were really interesting and diverse personalities. They all had a story to tell, not only erotic one, but the one of their life as well. I do know quite a lot of South Asian people, and the way author described them in the book is very accurate. I am not including their fantasies, but the part of how they present themselves to society, is quite accurate. Respect of the family is the main value in Asian society, and all people try to maintain that. That’s why Nikki is kind of rebel against traditional values, which is sometimes quite shameful in the eye of the community. Everything in this book sounds very real and believable: characters, plot and the way author described places used in this book, it’s unbelievably accurate. I liked that author included more than one character in this book, and told the story from Nikki’s and her employer’s Kulvinder’s perspective. Kulvinder has huge influence in the book, with the tragic story of her daughter Maya, who died very young. Through the views of Nikki and Kulvinder, the story of the book unfolds very nicely, and keeps the suspense going.
The plot of the book is very original; nevertheless, it tells couple of different stories at the same time. Most of the action in this book happens in Southall, London. As the author said in the book, she lived in Southall, while she was studying at university. That explains why she wrote about this place with such detail. She described every corner and street with great accuracy, and beautifully presented the spirit of that place. How do I know? I visited that place many times, that’s why the similarity shocked me. This book tells not only the story of widow’s fantasies, but also involves murders, and many dark secrets of the society itself, and that really made the book amusing, twisty and hard to put down. The more Nikki gets involved with the widows, the more this story turns and thickens. Author discussed a lot of important topics in this book, such as: honour killings; family relations between parents and children, and what honour and respect of the family means in Asian society; immigration and adjustment problems; and many more. Author showed really nicely, that women, even after marriage remain women, and that after washing dishes, cooking and cleaning houses, they have their wishes and desires, which are not always fulfilled. Let me tell you one thing, those erotic stories they tell are really kinky, and has wide variety of action going on, so it is definitely not for young people to read.
So, as I mentioned before, and as it is obvious from the name of the book, it contains so foul language but at the same time is very comic and funny to read. This book is quite detailed, but it doesn’t make it boring, it helps to understand the situations better. I really liked, that the chapters were divided, so it was easier and more fun to read it. The ending of the book is nice and ended the book really well, by putting all characters at peace. To conclude, I really enjoyed this layered, funny and very beautifully written book and I do recommend reading it to everyone, who would like to have an insight of South Asian community, and get involved with those great topics which author brought up in this book.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Grimworld: Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock in Books
Oct 10, 2019
Lately, I've been reading more Middle Grade books. There's just something refreshing about them. When the opportunity to read Grimworld by Avery Moray arose, I just couldn't say no. I love Middle Grade books as I've just said, and I love books that have a creepy, spooky factor. Grimworld checked both of those boxes. I will say that I enjoyed this short read for sure.
Thirteen year old Henry Bats lives in an eccentric world where all sorts of paranormal creatures lurk. Most of the time, he isn't really scared as this is just a normal thing to him. When one of these paranormal creatures scares him into helping it as well as promising him whatever he wants in return, Henry agrees. This turns out to be a deadly mistake because in return, instead of the comic book he wanted, Henry is now stuck with a pocket watch around his neck telling him when he will die. Part of Henry's life has been stolen away, and now he must figure out a way to get his life back or die in the process.
The plot for Grimworld was definitely intriguing and original. I loved all the crazy creature names and the world in which Henry lived. It sort of reminded me of the Harry Potter world in a way. There is plenty of action throughout the book, and I found myself really rooting for Henry and his friends. There's definitely some scary scenes in there, but I don't think it would be overly scary for middle graders who love horror. There are a few minor plot twists in there which aren't too predictable which is great! Although there is no real cliff hanger, Avery Moray does leave this book open for a sequel.
For the most part, Moray does a fantastic job at pitching to her target age group of around 11 - 13 years of age. She uses silly words throughout which children are sure to enjoy. However, sometimes the language may be a bit difficult for that age group due to more difficult words or as I like to call them "big words." Luckily, this doesn't happen that often. Also, there is a point in the book where Moray mentions pay phones and receivers which young kids may not know about in this day and age. Another thing I found a wee bit strange was that Henry's parents are always referred to by their actual names, Gobbert and Mildred, instead of mom and dad. While I know that some kids refer to their parents by their actual names, the majority of children do not. I felt it would have been a bit easier for children to reference Henry's parents as mom and dad instead of as Mildred and Gobbert.
The pacing is done beautifully in Grimworld. Although this is a middle grade read, this book still held my attention throughout. I was always looking forward to how the story would progress. I had to know if Henry and his friends would escape their horrible fate of the life that was stolen from them. This is also a short read, so I think children will have no problem reading Grimworld.
Character development was on point throughout Grimworld, and I really did feel as if every character acted their age. I admired Henry's determination to not only help himself but his other friends that were facing the same problem as him. I loved his quest to stop at nothing to find a solution. Lang was one of my favorite characters. I felt bad for what he had been through, and I guess that made me really bond with him. It was interesting to hear about his life. Hattie, Henry's younger sister, was also a great character. It was obvious she cared a lot about her brother all throughout the book. Persi was also a favorite of mine simply because I loved her dress sense and personality!
Trigger warnings for Grimworld include death (although it's nothing too heavy), minor violence, and paranormal creatures. However, this is a fantasy horror book so keep that in mind. I don't think it's too dark or overly scary when it comes to the age group it's written for.
Overall, Grimworld is a spooky read with fantastic characters and a great plot which will suck you right in! I would recommend Grimworld by Avery Moray to those aged 11 to 13 years of age who love a quirky spooky read. I'd also recommend it to adults as well who enjoy middle grade fantasy horror. You'll definitely be entertained by this book!
--
(A special thank you to Avery Moray for providing me with a paperback of Grimworld in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Thirteen year old Henry Bats lives in an eccentric world where all sorts of paranormal creatures lurk. Most of the time, he isn't really scared as this is just a normal thing to him. When one of these paranormal creatures scares him into helping it as well as promising him whatever he wants in return, Henry agrees. This turns out to be a deadly mistake because in return, instead of the comic book he wanted, Henry is now stuck with a pocket watch around his neck telling him when he will die. Part of Henry's life has been stolen away, and now he must figure out a way to get his life back or die in the process.
The plot for Grimworld was definitely intriguing and original. I loved all the crazy creature names and the world in which Henry lived. It sort of reminded me of the Harry Potter world in a way. There is plenty of action throughout the book, and I found myself really rooting for Henry and his friends. There's definitely some scary scenes in there, but I don't think it would be overly scary for middle graders who love horror. There are a few minor plot twists in there which aren't too predictable which is great! Although there is no real cliff hanger, Avery Moray does leave this book open for a sequel.
For the most part, Moray does a fantastic job at pitching to her target age group of around 11 - 13 years of age. She uses silly words throughout which children are sure to enjoy. However, sometimes the language may be a bit difficult for that age group due to more difficult words or as I like to call them "big words." Luckily, this doesn't happen that often. Also, there is a point in the book where Moray mentions pay phones and receivers which young kids may not know about in this day and age. Another thing I found a wee bit strange was that Henry's parents are always referred to by their actual names, Gobbert and Mildred, instead of mom and dad. While I know that some kids refer to their parents by their actual names, the majority of children do not. I felt it would have been a bit easier for children to reference Henry's parents as mom and dad instead of as Mildred and Gobbert.
The pacing is done beautifully in Grimworld. Although this is a middle grade read, this book still held my attention throughout. I was always looking forward to how the story would progress. I had to know if Henry and his friends would escape their horrible fate of the life that was stolen from them. This is also a short read, so I think children will have no problem reading Grimworld.
Character development was on point throughout Grimworld, and I really did feel as if every character acted their age. I admired Henry's determination to not only help himself but his other friends that were facing the same problem as him. I loved his quest to stop at nothing to find a solution. Lang was one of my favorite characters. I felt bad for what he had been through, and I guess that made me really bond with him. It was interesting to hear about his life. Hattie, Henry's younger sister, was also a great character. It was obvious she cared a lot about her brother all throughout the book. Persi was also a favorite of mine simply because I loved her dress sense and personality!
Trigger warnings for Grimworld include death (although it's nothing too heavy), minor violence, and paranormal creatures. However, this is a fantasy horror book so keep that in mind. I don't think it's too dark or overly scary when it comes to the age group it's written for.
Overall, Grimworld is a spooky read with fantastic characters and a great plot which will suck you right in! I would recommend Grimworld by Avery Moray to those aged 11 to 13 years of age who love a quirky spooky read. I'd also recommend it to adults as well who enjoy middle grade fantasy horror. You'll definitely be entertained by this book!
--
(A special thank you to Avery Moray for providing me with a paperback of Grimworld in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Oct 30, 2017 (Updated Oct 30, 2017)
Amazing visuals (2 more)
Witty dialogue
Surprise appearances
Inconsistent tone (2 more)
Anti climax
Wasted villain
The Worst Avenger's Best Movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
After seeing Thor: Ragnarok, I feel like the filmmakers were so paranoid about not churning out another formulaic, checklist of a Marvel movie that they chucked a whole bunch of disparate ideas into this mixing pot of a film and hoped that some of it would work. To some extent they were right; some of it does work, but some of it really doesn't. The stuff that doesn't work would probably work okay in a separate movie, but here it just provides a lack of cohesion and brings a jolting change of tone to many of the film's scenes.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Hannibal (Hannibal Lecter, #3) in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Written well (1 more)
Interesting characters
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was excited to read this book because Hannibal Lecter is one of my favorite fictional horror characters.
We get to follow Special Agent Clarice Starling through her troubles in the FBI,Hannibal Lecter's life while on the lamb (yes,that was intentional),one Italian detective's need for retribution,and a family's empire thirsty for revenge all inside of Harris' well-written 'Hannibal.'
The transition between this cast of characters is easily done with quick chapters,but Harris never loses a stride,keeping the momentum going from page to page.
The book begins with Special Agent Starling having made her place in the FBI. This soon becomes a controversy after a shootout pushes Starling into the headline spotlight,dubbed as the: Death Angel. Her career begins to fall apart,but not unnoticed by the one and only,Hannibal Lecter.
We meet a new and unforgettable character named Mason Verger. Verger is one of Lecter's earlier victims (pre-Silence of the Lambs),who survived and offers a high reward for the capture of his attacker. Verger is a memorable character --- "Mason Verger,noseless and lipless,with no soft tissue on his face,was all teeth,like a creature of the deep,deep ocean. Inured as we are to masks,the shock in seeing him is delayed. Shock comes with the recognition that this is a human face with a mind behind it. It churns you with its movement,the articulation of the jaw,the turning of the eye to see you. To see your normal face." But finding out the things he had done during his lifetime stays with the reader.
"I'm not ashamed anymore.I'll tell you about anything. It's all okay now. I got a walk on those trumped-up molestation counts if I did five hundred hours of community service,worked at the dog pound and got therapy from Dr. Lecter."
Even I couldn't blame Lecter for what he did to Mason.
"He went over to the mirror I looked at myself in,and kicked the bottom of it and took out a shard. I was flying. He came over and gave me the piece of glass and looked me in the eyes and suggested I might like to peel off my face with it."
Although most would have a revelation after such an attack,Mason continues to be the person he had always been,especially towards the children in his family's 'day care.'
"Do you know what will happen to Kitty Cat? The policemen will take Kitty Cat to the pound and a doctor there will give her a shot. Did you get a shot at day care? Did the nurse give you a shot? With a shiny needle? They'll give Kitty Cat a shot. She'll be so scared when she sees the needle. They'll stick it in and Kitty Cat will hurt and die."
Another interesting character we meet is named Rinaldo Pazzi,an Inspector in Florence,Italy. Pazzi is well known for working high profile cases,including the infamous serial killer,Il Mostro. It is Pazzi who identifies Lecter hiding in Florence. He makes a deal with Verger to help capture him for a nice lump sum,but at the chance of being killed by Lecter.
Eventually,we get a small insight into Lecter's psychological makeup by reliving the death of his sister,Mischa. This memory plays on and off throughout the rest of the book,but it's the only glimpse the reader gets into the dark side of Lecter's mind palace.
Harris beautifully transitioned from 'Silence of the Lambs' to 'Hannibal,' keeping readers on their toes from chapter to chapter. Interesting and dark characters intertwine to bring an end to Hannibal Lecter's series ('Hannibal Rising' is a prequel detailing Lecter's life as a young man).
I wouldn't say that you HAVE to read 'Silence of the Lambs' to understand the book 'Hannibal.' Harris did a great job of reminiscing over events that happened in 'Silence . . ." Yet,having read 'Silence. . .,' I will say you would get a better picture of Hannibal and Starling's view of one another,which would make the ending of 'Hannibal' make more sense to the reader.
Overall,I enjoyed 'Hannibal' more than 'Silence of the Lambs.' I find Starling's maturity in 'Hannibal' refreshing compared to her insecurities in 'Silence. . .' The book is very fluid,but a heavy read - this is not a read-in-a-day kind of book (484 pages). I found myself stopping and allowing what I read to settle in because it just seemed the right thing to do. My only annoyance was that during the entire part two that takes place in Florence,there is a lot of Italian being used without an english translation (I am not fluent,not even a little,so all of those sentences went right over my head). I feel like I may have missed out on some dialogue because of this.
We get to follow Special Agent Clarice Starling through her troubles in the FBI,Hannibal Lecter's life while on the lamb (yes,that was intentional),one Italian detective's need for retribution,and a family's empire thirsty for revenge all inside of Harris' well-written 'Hannibal.'
The transition between this cast of characters is easily done with quick chapters,but Harris never loses a stride,keeping the momentum going from page to page.
The book begins with Special Agent Starling having made her place in the FBI. This soon becomes a controversy after a shootout pushes Starling into the headline spotlight,dubbed as the: Death Angel. Her career begins to fall apart,but not unnoticed by the one and only,Hannibal Lecter.
We meet a new and unforgettable character named Mason Verger. Verger is one of Lecter's earlier victims (pre-Silence of the Lambs),who survived and offers a high reward for the capture of his attacker. Verger is a memorable character --- "Mason Verger,noseless and lipless,with no soft tissue on his face,was all teeth,like a creature of the deep,deep ocean. Inured as we are to masks,the shock in seeing him is delayed. Shock comes with the recognition that this is a human face with a mind behind it. It churns you with its movement,the articulation of the jaw,the turning of the eye to see you. To see your normal face." But finding out the things he had done during his lifetime stays with the reader.
"I'm not ashamed anymore.I'll tell you about anything. It's all okay now. I got a walk on those trumped-up molestation counts if I did five hundred hours of community service,worked at the dog pound and got therapy from Dr. Lecter."
Even I couldn't blame Lecter for what he did to Mason.
"He went over to the mirror I looked at myself in,and kicked the bottom of it and took out a shard. I was flying. He came over and gave me the piece of glass and looked me in the eyes and suggested I might like to peel off my face with it."
Although most would have a revelation after such an attack,Mason continues to be the person he had always been,especially towards the children in his family's 'day care.'
"Do you know what will happen to Kitty Cat? The policemen will take Kitty Cat to the pound and a doctor there will give her a shot. Did you get a shot at day care? Did the nurse give you a shot? With a shiny needle? They'll give Kitty Cat a shot. She'll be so scared when she sees the needle. They'll stick it in and Kitty Cat will hurt and die."
Another interesting character we meet is named Rinaldo Pazzi,an Inspector in Florence,Italy. Pazzi is well known for working high profile cases,including the infamous serial killer,Il Mostro. It is Pazzi who identifies Lecter hiding in Florence. He makes a deal with Verger to help capture him for a nice lump sum,but at the chance of being killed by Lecter.
Eventually,we get a small insight into Lecter's psychological makeup by reliving the death of his sister,Mischa. This memory plays on and off throughout the rest of the book,but it's the only glimpse the reader gets into the dark side of Lecter's mind palace.
Harris beautifully transitioned from 'Silence of the Lambs' to 'Hannibal,' keeping readers on their toes from chapter to chapter. Interesting and dark characters intertwine to bring an end to Hannibal Lecter's series ('Hannibal Rising' is a prequel detailing Lecter's life as a young man).
I wouldn't say that you HAVE to read 'Silence of the Lambs' to understand the book 'Hannibal.' Harris did a great job of reminiscing over events that happened in 'Silence . . ." Yet,having read 'Silence. . .,' I will say you would get a better picture of Hannibal and Starling's view of one another,which would make the ending of 'Hannibal' make more sense to the reader.
Overall,I enjoyed 'Hannibal' more than 'Silence of the Lambs.' I find Starling's maturity in 'Hannibal' refreshing compared to her insecurities in 'Silence. . .' The book is very fluid,but a heavy read - this is not a read-in-a-day kind of book (484 pages). I found myself stopping and allowing what I read to settle in because it just seemed the right thing to do. My only annoyance was that during the entire part two that takes place in Florence,there is a lot of Italian being used without an english translation (I am not fluent,not even a little,so all of those sentences went right over my head). I feel like I may have missed out on some dialogue because of this.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/