Search
Search results
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Tony Hogan Bought Me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma in Books
May 14, 2017
This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
‘Graffiti and scorch marks, echoes of small fires, decorated doorsteps. Golden Special Brew cans and crushed vodka bottles, bright as diamonds, collected in gutters. Front gardens were filled with mouldy paddling pools and, occasionally, a rust burnished shell of a car. I had never seen anything so beautiful, so many colours, before in grey Aberdeen.’
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
Hazel (1853 KP) rated This Secret We're Keeping in Books
May 25, 2017
Well-Written
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules? This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. This Secret We’re Keeping is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
This Secret We’re Keeping causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, This Secret We’re Keeping can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, This Secret We’re Keeping was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. This Secret We’re Keeping is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules? This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. This Secret We’re Keeping is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
This Secret We’re Keeping causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, This Secret We’re Keeping can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, This Secret We’re Keeping was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. This Secret We’re Keeping is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Apr 19, 2019
A half-decent film in its own right. A dreadful desperate attempt to link to Unbreakable at the end
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had watched over half of this film before someone mentioned to me it was part of the Unbreakable "trilogy". I had heard of Glass, and had noticed that McAvoy looked similar in the two films but hadn't realised they were linked (I guess I assumed he got bored of growing his hair back to then have to become Professor X again). I had wondered what the second film in the trilogy was. Unbeknownst to me, I was watching it.
McAvoy plays Kevin, a man whose upbringing lead him to develop a number of (mostly) distinct personalities. These personalities allow his brain to compartmentalise and protect itself from certain aspects of life.
Kevin has decided to kidnap two girls (but for reasons he ends up getting three for the price of two). There is much less threat and horror in their imprisonment than in this type of scenario normally, which is to the film's credit. The girls are confused by the different personalities and how they interact with them and with each other. There are moments of charm, comedy, pantomime and some chilling moments in these scenes.
McAvoy does a good job of portraying these different personalities and they are mostly distinct. He is said to have 23 such personalities but I can only say I recognised 5 distinct ones, two of which were only a camp leg-crossing away from being the same.
Kevin is afraid of, but also excited about (depending on which personality has the spotlight) the possible coming of The Beast, a 24th personality that will be strong and powerful and hard for him to control.
Most of the film centres around either Kevin and his kidnappees or his therapist, which helps to describe his issues and show them at the same time.
The final section, The Beast's emergence and the eventual escape of the victims (I actually can't remember if either of the other 2 girls escaped) was so implausible and hammy. The supposed physical changes that each personality brings to Kevin's body are stretched to breaking point, and I think this just becomes stupid.
We then see where the girls had been kept all this time (a zoo) and again this just shouts out stupid. Suggesting a mentally ill janitor could drive a car with three unconscious schoolgirls into a closed zoo is just stupid.
The final scene made me so angry. Up to this point, there was no link whatsoever to Unbreakable. Fine, I thought. Keep them as separate films in their own right and then Glass can bring them together. But no. We see a news report of the kidnapping and Kevin's escape and disappearance playing out in a diner. One woman remarks that it sounded like that guy a few years ago who went to prison. She turns to Bruce Willis who responds "Mr Glass" (Samuel L Jackson's character from Unbreakable). It sounded absolutely nothing like "that guy". There was no similarity whatsoever in what had been described on TV and the story about a rich disabled man organising terrorist attacks. None whatsoever. This was such a clumsy, unnecessary attempt to sow the seeds of excitement for Glass. This has actually tainted the film for me, it would probably have gotten a 7 or an 8 if not for this lunacy.
McAvoy plays Kevin, a man whose upbringing lead him to develop a number of (mostly) distinct personalities. These personalities allow his brain to compartmentalise and protect itself from certain aspects of life.
Kevin has decided to kidnap two girls (but for reasons he ends up getting three for the price of two). There is much less threat and horror in their imprisonment than in this type of scenario normally, which is to the film's credit. The girls are confused by the different personalities and how they interact with them and with each other. There are moments of charm, comedy, pantomime and some chilling moments in these scenes.
McAvoy does a good job of portraying these different personalities and they are mostly distinct. He is said to have 23 such personalities but I can only say I recognised 5 distinct ones, two of which were only a camp leg-crossing away from being the same.
Kevin is afraid of, but also excited about (depending on which personality has the spotlight) the possible coming of The Beast, a 24th personality that will be strong and powerful and hard for him to control.
Most of the film centres around either Kevin and his kidnappees or his therapist, which helps to describe his issues and show them at the same time.
The final section, The Beast's emergence and the eventual escape of the victims (I actually can't remember if either of the other 2 girls escaped) was so implausible and hammy. The supposed physical changes that each personality brings to Kevin's body are stretched to breaking point, and I think this just becomes stupid.
We then see where the girls had been kept all this time (a zoo) and again this just shouts out stupid. Suggesting a mentally ill janitor could drive a car with three unconscious schoolgirls into a closed zoo is just stupid.
The final scene made me so angry. Up to this point, there was no link whatsoever to Unbreakable. Fine, I thought. Keep them as separate films in their own right and then Glass can bring them together. But no. We see a news report of the kidnapping and Kevin's escape and disappearance playing out in a diner. One woman remarks that it sounded like that guy a few years ago who went to prison. She turns to Bruce Willis who responds "Mr Glass" (Samuel L Jackson's character from Unbreakable). It sounded absolutely nothing like "that guy". There was no similarity whatsoever in what had been described on TV and the story about a rich disabled man organising terrorist attacks. None whatsoever. This was such a clumsy, unnecessary attempt to sow the seeds of excitement for Glass. This has actually tainted the film for me, it would probably have gotten a 7 or an 8 if not for this lunacy.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Ethan Hawke is no stranger to the horror genre, in 2009 he starred in the Australian vampire flick Daybreakers, a film which promised so much, and delivered relatively little. Now he teams up with director James DeMonaco in a horror film that promises to be anything but ordinary; The Purge, but can it live up to its exciting trailer?
The Purge plays out like a poor-man’s Hunger Games. In the year 2020, America is prospering, crime is at an all-time low and unemployment is at 1%. The reason? Once a year, for twelve hours, all crime is legal and people across US can commit any atrocities they wish.
Ethan Hawke plays James Sandin, a security salesman who has capitalised on the public’s fear of being ‘purged’ by selling hi-tech safety equipment to the rich to ensure they stay safe. Lena Headey plays his wife Mary and his two children, Charlie and Zoe are played by Max Burkholder and Adelaide Kane respectively. In a moment of madness after the commencement of the annual purge, a ‘target’ (Edwin Hodge) is let into their home causing all hell to break loose.
Borrowing heavily from other ‘home invasion’ horror films such as When a Stranger Calls and The Strangers, The Purge really ‘gets going’ about two-thirds in when an army of killers swoop on Ethan Hawke’s impressive property looking for their ‘target.’ The family have one hour to reply before they all become ‘targets.’
Unfortunately, an exciting and unique premise is completely lost in a film that is riddled with many horror clichés, some of them blatantly obvious, (woman opening fridge door, door closes and harmless child shocks woman), some not so obvious. This is a terrible shame as the idea of all crime being legal is ridiculously exciting, but after about 40 minutes, we are locked in the Sandin’s home as they play cat and mouse with an array of forgettable serial killers and the original story is lost.
Another problem is the acting. Competent is the only word to describe it; Ethan Hawke is good in his role and his stern demeanour which has earned him so many acting jobs in the past is in full force here, but you can’t help feeling he was a budgetary decision rather than being who the producers actually wanted. Lena Headey seems to phone in a rather wooden performance, whilst the two kids do marginally better. By far the stand-out here is Rhys Wakefield, credited only as ‘Polite Stranger’ who is excellent and terrifying as equal measure; his facial expressions are enough to make you wince.
Overall, The Purge is an exciting film that delivers some unique thrills and spills mixed in with the usual horror clichés. Unfortunately, it doesn’t deliver on its unique and exciting starting point and delves into a generic slasher film around 45 minutes in. A stand-out performance from one of the cast isn’t enough to lift the acting above mediocre and the Sandin family are as characters, frightfully dull. It’s definitely worth a watch, but don’t let the trailer fool you; it’s not as unique as you might expect.
The new review system breaks down the film into categories allowing you, as the readers to see just where I have awarded points to the film. It is still in a testing stage, so if there are any categories you think could improve it, please let me know.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/05/31/the-purge-review-2013/
The Purge plays out like a poor-man’s Hunger Games. In the year 2020, America is prospering, crime is at an all-time low and unemployment is at 1%. The reason? Once a year, for twelve hours, all crime is legal and people across US can commit any atrocities they wish.
Ethan Hawke plays James Sandin, a security salesman who has capitalised on the public’s fear of being ‘purged’ by selling hi-tech safety equipment to the rich to ensure they stay safe. Lena Headey plays his wife Mary and his two children, Charlie and Zoe are played by Max Burkholder and Adelaide Kane respectively. In a moment of madness after the commencement of the annual purge, a ‘target’ (Edwin Hodge) is let into their home causing all hell to break loose.
Borrowing heavily from other ‘home invasion’ horror films such as When a Stranger Calls and The Strangers, The Purge really ‘gets going’ about two-thirds in when an army of killers swoop on Ethan Hawke’s impressive property looking for their ‘target.’ The family have one hour to reply before they all become ‘targets.’
Unfortunately, an exciting and unique premise is completely lost in a film that is riddled with many horror clichés, some of them blatantly obvious, (woman opening fridge door, door closes and harmless child shocks woman), some not so obvious. This is a terrible shame as the idea of all crime being legal is ridiculously exciting, but after about 40 minutes, we are locked in the Sandin’s home as they play cat and mouse with an array of forgettable serial killers and the original story is lost.
Another problem is the acting. Competent is the only word to describe it; Ethan Hawke is good in his role and his stern demeanour which has earned him so many acting jobs in the past is in full force here, but you can’t help feeling he was a budgetary decision rather than being who the producers actually wanted. Lena Headey seems to phone in a rather wooden performance, whilst the two kids do marginally better. By far the stand-out here is Rhys Wakefield, credited only as ‘Polite Stranger’ who is excellent and terrifying as equal measure; his facial expressions are enough to make you wince.
Overall, The Purge is an exciting film that delivers some unique thrills and spills mixed in with the usual horror clichés. Unfortunately, it doesn’t deliver on its unique and exciting starting point and delves into a generic slasher film around 45 minutes in. A stand-out performance from one of the cast isn’t enough to lift the acting above mediocre and the Sandin family are as characters, frightfully dull. It’s definitely worth a watch, but don’t let the trailer fool you; it’s not as unique as you might expect.
The new review system breaks down the film into categories allowing you, as the readers to see just where I have awarded points to the film. It is still in a testing stage, so if there are any categories you think could improve it, please let me know.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/05/31/the-purge-review-2013/
Grace and Tippi are conjoined twins, after being homeschooled for 16 years they are forced to attend Hornbeacon High.
The city can longer fund the girls homeschooling, nor can the family afford it, together they must venture the real world of stares, nasty comments, cruelty and obstacles they have to overcome.
Will they make friends? love! could it even be a possibility?
The girls realise they have to make a heart wrenching decision not only for the family but for themselves.
Easy money
<I> If I owned a pistol i could rob a bank.
I could stick a gun in a teller's face
and demand a stack of cash
then motor off in a stolen Maserati.
I could sell drugs to kids on the street corners
or pimp out girls to the highest bidder.
I could break and law I wanted.
If they imprisoned me,
they'd have to lock up Tippi too,
which is false arrest,
Illegal,
and would never stand up in a
court of law.
If I didn't have this damn conscience,
we'd be rich.</I>
I loved this verse (above) It made me laugh at the thought, she has a point, how would that work?
My thoughts,
I loved this book, i have never read anything like this before and it was thought-provoking. I had never thought of things such as when one of them is ill, the other stays in bed until recuperation, or what if one of them falls in love? If one drinks alcohol, will the other get drunk? There were times during this book where i would stop reading and do a thinking pose like J.D from Scrubs and ponder.
This book has made me want to learn more about conjoined twins and the effects on their lives, if anyone know any other books like this let me know, even if its non fiction.
Characters:
The parents - I felt no connection to the parents whatsoever, it felt like they had given up, What with the father being made redundant, depressed, and an alcoholic. The mum was overworked in a bank. However saying that it does show you the effects and costs,strain that it can have on families.
Yasmeen - has her own problems and with that she has become hardened to bullies, the twins need a friend like this
Grace was they shyer of the two whereas Tippi was most outspoken and bitchy.
Jon - I felt no connection with him at all, I just felt he was in the story as Sarah Crossan wanted to touch on the subject of love.
Dragon I felt sorry for as she was having to fend for herself in the sense that her parents couldn't afford ballet lessons so she had to find alternative ways to carry on with her dance,
This is the first book that I have ever read in verse and it was so different, easy to read and quick. the book is 430 pages and read this in less than a day.
Its told in Grace's POV, however it would have been nice to hear from Tippi too.
Sarah Crossan touches very slightly on other subjects but doesn't delve deep into them.
She also shows you that these 2 girls have such a bond that if the possibility of separation was an option they would refuse, despite the health scares, remarks and challenges they will come across.
Overall I rate this book 4 out of 5 stars
The city can longer fund the girls homeschooling, nor can the family afford it, together they must venture the real world of stares, nasty comments, cruelty and obstacles they have to overcome.
Will they make friends? love! could it even be a possibility?
The girls realise they have to make a heart wrenching decision not only for the family but for themselves.
Easy money
<I> If I owned a pistol i could rob a bank.
I could stick a gun in a teller's face
and demand a stack of cash
then motor off in a stolen Maserati.
I could sell drugs to kids on the street corners
or pimp out girls to the highest bidder.
I could break and law I wanted.
If they imprisoned me,
they'd have to lock up Tippi too,
which is false arrest,
Illegal,
and would never stand up in a
court of law.
If I didn't have this damn conscience,
we'd be rich.</I>
I loved this verse (above) It made me laugh at the thought, she has a point, how would that work?
My thoughts,
I loved this book, i have never read anything like this before and it was thought-provoking. I had never thought of things such as when one of them is ill, the other stays in bed until recuperation, or what if one of them falls in love? If one drinks alcohol, will the other get drunk? There were times during this book where i would stop reading and do a thinking pose like J.D from Scrubs and ponder.
This book has made me want to learn more about conjoined twins and the effects on their lives, if anyone know any other books like this let me know, even if its non fiction.
Characters:
The parents - I felt no connection to the parents whatsoever, it felt like they had given up, What with the father being made redundant, depressed, and an alcoholic. The mum was overworked in a bank. However saying that it does show you the effects and costs,strain that it can have on families.
Yasmeen - has her own problems and with that she has become hardened to bullies, the twins need a friend like this
Grace was they shyer of the two whereas Tippi was most outspoken and bitchy.
Jon - I felt no connection with him at all, I just felt he was in the story as Sarah Crossan wanted to touch on the subject of love.
Dragon I felt sorry for as she was having to fend for herself in the sense that her parents couldn't afford ballet lessons so she had to find alternative ways to carry on with her dance,
This is the first book that I have ever read in verse and it was so different, easy to read and quick. the book is 430 pages and read this in less than a day.
Its told in Grace's POV, however it would have been nice to hear from Tippi too.
Sarah Crossan touches very slightly on other subjects but doesn't delve deep into them.
She also shows you that these 2 girls have such a bond that if the possibility of separation was an option they would refuse, despite the health scares, remarks and challenges they will come across.
Overall I rate this book 4 out of 5 stars
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Europe. The very name brings up images of rich traditions, centuries-old stunning architecture, fine cuisine, historic artwork, and of course culture and sophistication. Europe has endured wars, plagues, and hordes of unruly soccer fans and has remained intact. Perhaps its greatest challenge is about to arrive in the form of Deuce Bigalow, pool cleaner, fish lover, and male Gigolo.
Rob Schneider returns as Deuce, who has given up his man-whoring ways and married the girl of his dreams. As the film opens, we learn that Deuce was widowed on his honeymoon and has carried a torch for his departed wife for years. The fact that the torch in question is actually her artificial limb is a creepy sentiment that further isolates Deuce from those around him.
After a day at the beach goes horribly wrong, Deuce happily accepts an invitation from his friend T.J. (Eddie Griffin), and travels to Amsterdam for some time away. With the artificial limb in tow, Deuce arrives and learns that a mysterious killer has been dispatching Europe’s top gigolos and before you can say “space cake” T.J. is implicated in the murders and on the run, forcing Deuce to go back to his man-whoring in an effort to learn who is behind the killings.
Since Deuce witnessed the aftermath of a recent killing, he is convinced that the killer is a woman and that only by dating those clients of the recently departed can he find the proof needed to free T.J.
Of course Deuce doesn’t get the cream of society. His clients are a mixed bag that makes his Janes from the first film seem normal. There is the lady with the gaping hole in her throat, a lady whose ears put Dumbo’s to shame, a giant with an infant fetish, and a woman with a male sex organ for a nose.
It is against this backdrop that Deuce meets Eva (Hanna Verboom), an artist with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and the daughter of the police inspector
investigating the case. Deuce is taken with the charming Eva which leads to even more conflict for the widowed Deuce.
As if his life could not get any worse, Deuce is at odds with the European Society of Man Pimps who constantly go out of their way to taunt Deuce and his inclusion in their profession.
Over the next 90 minutes a constant barrage of crude jokes ensues ranging from the gross to the juvenile. Yet despite the ongoing crude and sophomoric humor, I found myself laughing as did the majority of the audience at my screening.
While I can see how many critics will not like this film due to a very basic story, thin characters and crudeness, the film works very well as a mindless comedy.
The characters are not expanded from their roles in the original and do not need to be. We know that Deuce is an easy going loser with a heart of gold and that is all we need to know.
Schneider and Griffin work well with one another and the constant euphemisms such as Mangina, He-Hoe and Hegina flow often only to be followed by new and even more creative phrases.
If you are a fan of the original and do not get offended easily than this is going to be your film. It isn’t trying to break new ground, it is trying to make you laugh, and for this critic, despite the films flaws, I laughed constantly throughout, and in many cases harder than I have at any film in recent years.
Rob Schneider returns as Deuce, who has given up his man-whoring ways and married the girl of his dreams. As the film opens, we learn that Deuce was widowed on his honeymoon and has carried a torch for his departed wife for years. The fact that the torch in question is actually her artificial limb is a creepy sentiment that further isolates Deuce from those around him.
After a day at the beach goes horribly wrong, Deuce happily accepts an invitation from his friend T.J. (Eddie Griffin), and travels to Amsterdam for some time away. With the artificial limb in tow, Deuce arrives and learns that a mysterious killer has been dispatching Europe’s top gigolos and before you can say “space cake” T.J. is implicated in the murders and on the run, forcing Deuce to go back to his man-whoring in an effort to learn who is behind the killings.
Since Deuce witnessed the aftermath of a recent killing, he is convinced that the killer is a woman and that only by dating those clients of the recently departed can he find the proof needed to free T.J.
Of course Deuce doesn’t get the cream of society. His clients are a mixed bag that makes his Janes from the first film seem normal. There is the lady with the gaping hole in her throat, a lady whose ears put Dumbo’s to shame, a giant with an infant fetish, and a woman with a male sex organ for a nose.
It is against this backdrop that Deuce meets Eva (Hanna Verboom), an artist with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and the daughter of the police inspector
investigating the case. Deuce is taken with the charming Eva which leads to even more conflict for the widowed Deuce.
As if his life could not get any worse, Deuce is at odds with the European Society of Man Pimps who constantly go out of their way to taunt Deuce and his inclusion in their profession.
Over the next 90 minutes a constant barrage of crude jokes ensues ranging from the gross to the juvenile. Yet despite the ongoing crude and sophomoric humor, I found myself laughing as did the majority of the audience at my screening.
While I can see how many critics will not like this film due to a very basic story, thin characters and crudeness, the film works very well as a mindless comedy.
The characters are not expanded from their roles in the original and do not need to be. We know that Deuce is an easy going loser with a heart of gold and that is all we need to know.
Schneider and Griffin work well with one another and the constant euphemisms such as Mangina, He-Hoe and Hegina flow often only to be followed by new and even more creative phrases.
If you are a fan of the original and do not get offended easily than this is going to be your film. It isn’t trying to break new ground, it is trying to make you laugh, and for this critic, despite the films flaws, I laughed constantly throughout, and in many cases harder than I have at any film in recent years.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dictator (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly one of the most daring names in comedy recently. A Cambridge graduate, the comedian-actor who has starred in fairly controversial films “Bruno” and “Borat” returns with director Larry Charles in 2012’s “The Dictator”. What can be said about Cohen, over other contemporary comedians, is his absolutely excellent ability to inhabit a character role – both in and out of the film he is portrayed in. “The Dictator” is no exception to this, yet it might be the controversy regarding the Academy Awards snub that is remembered more than this film.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
PressReader
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Connecting you with the stories you love, from thousands of sources you trust. All you can read news...
Clarity: Clear Mind, Better Performance, Bigger Results
Book
LEARN TO CLEAR YOUR MIND AND THINK LIKE A WINNER We all have so much going on. A million different...