Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Shade Me (Nikki Kill, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
Shade Me</i> and I are completely polar opposites. Everything Nikki is, Im not (and Im typically against it in some way), which is an extreme rarity (and definitely not a problem). And if this is a series, Ill probably have a love/hate relationship with Nikki akin to love triangles where I love/hate both guys (and maybe the girl as well).
Anyways
I feel Nikkis past feels like a pity party with a really rough childhood. However, it just goes with the story because her rough childhood tells readers why Nikki is the way she is in the novel. Shes afraid of falling in love (hello? Im not a romantic, but um ), probably hooks up with guys on a weekly basis (okay ), and is close enough to flunking and not graduating basically, she seems like a character I would probably stay away from in real life. Also, with her Tae Kwon Do (is it Tae Kwon Do?) skills, shes also just a person I would avoid messing around with.
But the coolest thing about Shade Me is how Nikki sees everything in color (synesthesia) and when she gets a call to identify a person in an attempted murder, Nikki uses her synesthesia to try and find the attempted murderer. The person she identifies isnt even someone she knows really well (shes heard of them because the person is the daughter of a famous producer, but doesnt know them), which I find really admirable. I mean, its not typical a random person goes out of her way just to find out why someone attempted to murder someone she doesnt even associate herself with. Shes also horrible with sneaking around everything just backfires, but Nikki is an amazing sleuth who has extreme guts.
Overall, though? The book is about rich people problems with a dash of family drama. Brown takes something readers would typically find on daytime drama and mixes it up with something else completely different, making Shade Me just a tad bit different than simply family drama.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-shade-me-by-jennifer-brown-arc-review-and-giveaway/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Shade Me</i> and I are completely polar opposites. Everything Nikki is, Im not (and Im typically against it in some way), which is an extreme rarity (and definitely not a problem). And if this is a series, Ill probably have a love/hate relationship with Nikki akin to love triangles where I love/hate both guys (and maybe the girl as well).
Anyways
I feel Nikkis past feels like a pity party with a really rough childhood. However, it just goes with the story because her rough childhood tells readers why Nikki is the way she is in the novel. Shes afraid of falling in love (hello? Im not a romantic, but um ), probably hooks up with guys on a weekly basis (okay ), and is close enough to flunking and not graduating basically, she seems like a character I would probably stay away from in real life. Also, with her Tae Kwon Do (is it Tae Kwon Do?) skills, shes also just a person I would avoid messing around with.
But the coolest thing about Shade Me is how Nikki sees everything in color (synesthesia) and when she gets a call to identify a person in an attempted murder, Nikki uses her synesthesia to try and find the attempted murderer. The person she identifies isnt even someone she knows really well (shes heard of them because the person is the daughter of a famous producer, but doesnt know them), which I find really admirable. I mean, its not typical a random person goes out of her way just to find out why someone attempted to murder someone she doesnt even associate herself with. Shes also horrible with sneaking around everything just backfires, but Nikki is an amazing sleuth who has extreme guts.
Overall, though? The book is about rich people problems with a dash of family drama. Brown takes something readers would typically find on daytime drama and mixes it up with something else completely different, making Shade Me just a tad bit different than simply family drama.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-shade-me-by-jennifer-brown-arc-review-and-giveaway/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
DA
Down and Out in the New Economy: How People Find (or Don't Find) Work Today
Book
Finding a job used to be simple. You'd show up at an office and ask for an application. A friend...
A muddled faux memoir posing as fiction
This is the eleventh book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet. Let's clear those shelves and delve into that backlist!
Jay leaves college, determined to become a writer, and heads to Paris. There he meets a young model, Katerina, and falls in love. Twenty-five years later, Jay is a writer--famous and rich--but he's lost his way. Then he receives a message from a lost love. The message draws him back to memories of his old life and his old loves.
Years ago, James Frey dazzled me with A Million Little Pieces and My Friend Leonard. I loved those books so much, and while I was aware of some of the controversy surrounding Pieces, I don't think I fully grasped it. Katerina is a strange book--a memoir type story hidden as a novel that loosely covers Frey's life, including the time he wrote a novel that was sort of a memoir. Following? Confused? Me too.
I thought Katerina was a book, fiction, but it's really Frey's retelling of his life, trying to cast himself as a sympathetic character (I think? Jay doesn't exactly come across as all that likeable.). It did intrigue me enough to read up more on the past controversies of his life and truly, the end result was that I didn't care for Katerina all that much, and I felt disillusioned about Pieces, a book I really enjoyed. Sigh.
Katerina uses the same stream of consciousness writing style from Pieces, and if you don't want your writing filled with profanity and sex, I wouldn't go near Katerina with a ten-foot pole. There's drinking--so much drinking here--that it physically pained me at times. It's an emotional read--Frey excels at that--and there are some twists. I won't lie, I found it interesting at times, and narcissistic and boring at others. Jay is hard to like in the past and present (the book splits it time between the two), but I do not think Frey cares, and it covers Frey's scandals lightly disguised as Jay's.
It's a beautiful love letter to Paris; the descriptions of the city are wonderful. There's no real characterization of Jay's beloved Katerina (the person), though, and many descriptions are just repetitive. The ending comes up quickly, as well.
Overall, while I found pieces of this novel engaging, I was disappointed overall. Honestly, I'll probably never be able to capture the magic I found in Frey's early works. 2.5 stars.
Jay leaves college, determined to become a writer, and heads to Paris. There he meets a young model, Katerina, and falls in love. Twenty-five years later, Jay is a writer--famous and rich--but he's lost his way. Then he receives a message from a lost love. The message draws him back to memories of his old life and his old loves.
Years ago, James Frey dazzled me with A Million Little Pieces and My Friend Leonard. I loved those books so much, and while I was aware of some of the controversy surrounding Pieces, I don't think I fully grasped it. Katerina is a strange book--a memoir type story hidden as a novel that loosely covers Frey's life, including the time he wrote a novel that was sort of a memoir. Following? Confused? Me too.
I thought Katerina was a book, fiction, but it's really Frey's retelling of his life, trying to cast himself as a sympathetic character (I think? Jay doesn't exactly come across as all that likeable.). It did intrigue me enough to read up more on the past controversies of his life and truly, the end result was that I didn't care for Katerina all that much, and I felt disillusioned about Pieces, a book I really enjoyed. Sigh.
Katerina uses the same stream of consciousness writing style from Pieces, and if you don't want your writing filled with profanity and sex, I wouldn't go near Katerina with a ten-foot pole. There's drinking--so much drinking here--that it physically pained me at times. It's an emotional read--Frey excels at that--and there are some twists. I won't lie, I found it interesting at times, and narcissistic and boring at others. Jay is hard to like in the past and present (the book splits it time between the two), but I do not think Frey cares, and it covers Frey's scandals lightly disguised as Jay's.
It's a beautiful love letter to Paris; the descriptions of the city are wonderful. There's no real characterization of Jay's beloved Katerina (the person), though, and many descriptions are just repetitive. The ending comes up quickly, as well.
Overall, while I found pieces of this novel engaging, I was disappointed overall. Honestly, I'll probably never be able to capture the magic I found in Frey's early works. 2.5 stars.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Flash, Vol. 9: Reckoning of the Forces in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This review pertains to the last three Flash trades, this one and the previous two.
Vol. 7: PERFECT STORM was quite good. I found it to be an interesting addition to the Gorilla Grodd stories. I was so inspired that I took it upon myself to read Vol. 8 & 9.
Vol. 8: FLASH WAR was like a ride on the BARRY ALLEN ANGST and SELF-LOATHING EXPRESS! But, even with that feeling in mind, I continued reading, eventually taking on the even more difficult task of taking on Vol. 9, which turned into yet another ride on that same depressing train ride!
I had read Vol 1, Joshua Williamson's first outing with "REBIRTH" Barry Allen's Flash. That one I found to be lifeless and missing something that Geoff John's Flash definitely had! But, I thought I'd give it one more try with that Gorilla Grodd story, which I turned out to like more than Vol. 1!
Vol. 9 just continues to show us overly-doubting-himself Barry as well as Wally West's Flash, only now with more angst as well as Barry-centric anger! Yeah, not good! NOPE!
It seems like writing for the Flash would be a fun writing assignment, then factoring in Wally West, it should be that much more fun! Unfortunately, that was not the case! DC allowed Barry to experience a sense of self-loathing and a lack of self-confidence, doing a huge disservice to a character with such a rich history as his!
Equally frustrating was the way Wally was treated! I know he and Barry are both comic characters, meaning they are not real. I get that, but I still felt the need to want to buy them each a short stack of pancakes (my treat, of course) and then offer to give each of them a "bro hug" and maybe a Mini Schnauzer puppy as well!
Oh, and how about that shit Williamson did in regard to the Speed Force? I am pretty sure <b>NO ONE</b> wanted there to be other Forces, especially ones as unnecessary as the ones he was serving up!
And how about that art? What the hell?!!? I felt like the dude was trying to emulate Scott Kolin's style of art, only failing to not even come close!
I understand there may be those of you reading this review who like Williamson's Flash. Hey, good for you. No, really. But, I am not gonna be one of them!
Shame on you, DC Comics! BOOOOOO!
Vol. 7: PERFECT STORM was quite good. I found it to be an interesting addition to the Gorilla Grodd stories. I was so inspired that I took it upon myself to read Vol. 8 & 9.
Vol. 8: FLASH WAR was like a ride on the BARRY ALLEN ANGST and SELF-LOATHING EXPRESS! But, even with that feeling in mind, I continued reading, eventually taking on the even more difficult task of taking on Vol. 9, which turned into yet another ride on that same depressing train ride!
I had read Vol 1, Joshua Williamson's first outing with "REBIRTH" Barry Allen's Flash. That one I found to be lifeless and missing something that Geoff John's Flash definitely had! But, I thought I'd give it one more try with that Gorilla Grodd story, which I turned out to like more than Vol. 1!
Vol. 9 just continues to show us overly-doubting-himself Barry as well as Wally West's Flash, only now with more angst as well as Barry-centric anger! Yeah, not good! NOPE!
It seems like writing for the Flash would be a fun writing assignment, then factoring in Wally West, it should be that much more fun! Unfortunately, that was not the case! DC allowed Barry to experience a sense of self-loathing and a lack of self-confidence, doing a huge disservice to a character with such a rich history as his!
Equally frustrating was the way Wally was treated! I know he and Barry are both comic characters, meaning they are not real. I get that, but I still felt the need to want to buy them each a short stack of pancakes (my treat, of course) and then offer to give each of them a "bro hug" and maybe a Mini Schnauzer puppy as well!
Oh, and how about that shit Williamson did in regard to the Speed Force? I am pretty sure <b>NO ONE</b> wanted there to be other Forces, especially ones as unnecessary as the ones he was serving up!
And how about that art? What the hell?!!? I felt like the dude was trying to emulate Scott Kolin's style of art, only failing to not even come close!
I understand there may be those of you reading this review who like Williamson's Flash. Hey, good for you. No, really. But, I am not gonna be one of them!
Shame on you, DC Comics! BOOOOOO!
The Gourmands’ Way: Six Americans in Paris and the Birth of a New Gastronomy
Book
“In The Gourmands’ Way, Justin Spring brilliantly recounts the French odyssey of six remarkable...
Biography food
Titan: The Life of John D. Rockerfeller, Sr.
Book
"John D. Rockefeller, Sr. history's first billionaire and the patriarch of America's most famous...
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Mothergamer (1583 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated She Was The Quiet One in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Interesting read if a bit predictable
After the death of their mother, twins Rose and Bel Enright wind up at Odell Academy in New Hampshire. They are sent by their wealthy grandmother, who has no idea what to do with the teenagers now foisted upon her. Rose is the good twin--good grades, good friends, good behavior. Bel, on the other hand, is known for going a bit wild. But it was Bel their mother favored--much to Rose's consternation. Floundering after the loss of their mother, Bel winds up with the wrong crowd at school and then turns on Rose when she calls her out on it. Meanwhile, Heath and Sarah Donovan have been brought in to clean up Moreland Hall, the dormitory where the twins are staying. It has developed a reputation for trouble. It's a daunting task, especially since so many of the girls come from storied, rich Odell families. Both Sarah and Heath are Moreland alums--they met at the school--and not all of their memories are pleasant. As for Heath, his dreams extend far beyond teaching high school English. But something in his past holds him back; he's hoping to parlay their time at Moreland into something more. But soon things at Moreland--and Odell--are out of control, with the Enright twins and the Donovans right in the middle of all the trouble.
From the beginning of the novel, we immediately know that an Enright sister is dead, but not which one. The narration from Bel, Rose, and Sarah is interspersed with snippets from police interviews, as we try to piece together exactly what happened to lead to murder. This was perhaps my favorite part of the story--trying to figure out who had been killed--and why the other sister is the prime suspect. The format of the novel is very well-done and extremely compelling.
In the beginning, some of the dialogue seemed stilted: I couldn't imagine the sisters really talking to each other in particular ways, for instance. Rose and Bel's instant fighting seemed rash, and it was hard to take. In fact, the entire boarding school drama seemed a little too much, at times. I understand the fact that girls can quickly turn on each other--especially when they all live together--but the twins threatening to kill each other over a sweater? It was tough and it was a lot of drama, so fast, so often. Rose was incredibly prissy and tough to like for a lot of the novel. And then poor Sarah, who was such a doormat, with an incredible lack of judgement--she was a hard character to find sympathy for as well.
The novel also seemed to march toward a fairly inevitable conclusion. I kept waiting for a big twist or surprise to throw me off and while the epilogue offered a little bit of that, there really wasn't much. The book focuses more on the unraveling of the families than twists and turns, and that was a little disappointing for me. I like to be thrown off the trail a few times.
Still, I really enjoyed the format of this one: wondering and waiting to find out who was dead, along with the pieces from the interviews. I liked the boarding school setting and how it added to the story. While I didn't always enjoy all the characters, I really came to feel for for Bel Enright, and I did sympathize with Rose, as well. Even if things were fairly predictable, Campbell kept me reading and interested the entire time. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
From the beginning of the novel, we immediately know that an Enright sister is dead, but not which one. The narration from Bel, Rose, and Sarah is interspersed with snippets from police interviews, as we try to piece together exactly what happened to lead to murder. This was perhaps my favorite part of the story--trying to figure out who had been killed--and why the other sister is the prime suspect. The format of the novel is very well-done and extremely compelling.
In the beginning, some of the dialogue seemed stilted: I couldn't imagine the sisters really talking to each other in particular ways, for instance. Rose and Bel's instant fighting seemed rash, and it was hard to take. In fact, the entire boarding school drama seemed a little too much, at times. I understand the fact that girls can quickly turn on each other--especially when they all live together--but the twins threatening to kill each other over a sweater? It was tough and it was a lot of drama, so fast, so often. Rose was incredibly prissy and tough to like for a lot of the novel. And then poor Sarah, who was such a doormat, with an incredible lack of judgement--she was a hard character to find sympathy for as well.
The novel also seemed to march toward a fairly inevitable conclusion. I kept waiting for a big twist or surprise to throw me off and while the epilogue offered a little bit of that, there really wasn't much. The book focuses more on the unraveling of the families than twists and turns, and that was a little disappointing for me. I like to be thrown off the trail a few times.
Still, I really enjoyed the format of this one: wondering and waiting to find out who was dead, along with the pieces from the interviews. I liked the boarding school setting and how it added to the story. While I didn't always enjoy all the characters, I really came to feel for for Bel Enright, and I did sympathize with Rose, as well. Even if things were fairly predictable, Campbell kept me reading and interested the entire time. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).