Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Elemental (Elemental, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
The first book in the <i>Elemental</i> trilogy is set in a futuristic United States colony where people called Guardians have powers over the elements: water, wind, earth, and fire. For years, sixteen-year-old Thomas believed that he doesn't have powers like everyone else in the colony, until pirates kidnap the Guardians and the remaining colonists fight for a survival on an abandoned town.
<b><i>Elemental</i> has its good elements that worked out well in favor, but it had some elements that just didn't work out too well</b> it just had more elements that didn't work out really well.
The book is <b>primarily a survival book, but there's a mysterious aura surrounding the book that kept it somewhat interesting. However, the mysterious aspect? Antony John overdid it.</b> You're immediately thrown into action when the book starts and it doesn't actually stop. A huge chunk of the beginning is dedicated to surviving from the pirates who kidnapped the guardians and Thomas and his friends trying to survive on this mysterious Skeleton Town.
<b>There's not much about this Plague the Guardians keep talking about or how their elements work what, precisely, is an echo?</b> It's obviously a side effect, and it seems to leave a negative remnant on the person, but what is it <i>exactly?</i>. <b>I'm confused on how this Plague works or how it started, even with that newspaper-esque clip</b> it sounds like an experiment gone absolutely awry and blew up not only in the experimenters' faces, but the entire world. No one appreciates an experiment gone awry inside and outside the lab, but the dead can't complain.
<b>There's this "solution" the pirates are looking for, but Antony jumps between Griffin and Thomas intermittently</b> I'm still not too sure who the "solution" is. <b>I'm not sure about this whole Guardians thing</b> sounds like an experiment similar to the one done to Captain America in a different style even with Thomas and his companions coming across things in Skeleton Town that make them question the origins of the Guardians.
<i>Elemental</i> is also <b>heading into highly awkward love triangle it's in absolute danger zone</b> and I'm not sure I want to stick around for two girls pining for Thomas' attention. It's not noticeable yet <b>it's very subtle and certainly doesn't disturb anything going on in the story or the overall plot.</b>
By the end, <b>Antony John leaves you with curiosity and perhaps a need to continue the series, but he leaves more questions and confusion with loose ends than a solid answer or two.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-elemental-by-antony-john/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<b><i>Elemental</i> has its good elements that worked out well in favor, but it had some elements that just didn't work out too well</b> it just had more elements that didn't work out really well.
The book is <b>primarily a survival book, but there's a mysterious aura surrounding the book that kept it somewhat interesting. However, the mysterious aspect? Antony John overdid it.</b> You're immediately thrown into action when the book starts and it doesn't actually stop. A huge chunk of the beginning is dedicated to surviving from the pirates who kidnapped the guardians and Thomas and his friends trying to survive on this mysterious Skeleton Town.
<b>There's not much about this Plague the Guardians keep talking about or how their elements work what, precisely, is an echo?</b> It's obviously a side effect, and it seems to leave a negative remnant on the person, but what is it <i>exactly?</i>. <b>I'm confused on how this Plague works or how it started, even with that newspaper-esque clip</b> it sounds like an experiment gone absolutely awry and blew up not only in the experimenters' faces, but the entire world. No one appreciates an experiment gone awry inside and outside the lab, but the dead can't complain.
<b>There's this "solution" the pirates are looking for, but Antony jumps between Griffin and Thomas intermittently</b> I'm still not too sure who the "solution" is. <b>I'm not sure about this whole Guardians thing</b> sounds like an experiment similar to the one done to Captain America in a different style even with Thomas and his companions coming across things in Skeleton Town that make them question the origins of the Guardians.
<i>Elemental</i> is also <b>heading into highly awkward love triangle it's in absolute danger zone</b> and I'm not sure I want to stick around for two girls pining for Thomas' attention. It's not noticeable yet <b>it's very subtle and certainly doesn't disturb anything going on in the story or the overall plot.</b>
By the end, <b>Antony John leaves you with curiosity and perhaps a need to continue the series, but he leaves more questions and confusion with loose ends than a solid answer or two.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-elemental-by-antony-john/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Well Acted
In 2012, the conservative Pope Benedict - citing failing health - made the rare move of stepping down from the Papacy. He was, ultimately, replaced by the more Liberal Pope Francis. THE TWO POPES is a fictional account of a conversation that these two men had prior to Benedict's stepping down.
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
Will Baby Get Out of the Game?
A young getaway driver finds himself in over his head when he tries to get out of the crime game.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s really hard not to love main character Baby (Ansel Elgort). Sure he’s helping criminals do criminal things but he has a great story and a solid motive. From the minute he shows up on screen beating his steering wheel to the music, you immediately want to root for this guy. Baby answers to Doc played by Kevin Spacey who reads the role with a controlled seriousness that forces you to focus on his every word. Doc along with an interesting gang of thugs make for a solid supporting cast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Whether it’s two lovebirds in a diner talking or a death-defying car chase, I really appreciate the way Edgar Wright uses different angles to capture the perfect moment. I don’t know how he did it, but the movie has an 80’s feel to it even though it takes place in modern day. The action sequences play out in amazing fashion on screen and keep the story moving.
Conflict: 10
So many angles to consider here. Will Baby get out of the game? Does he get the girl? Will the next heist be a success? Something seems to always be happening whether at the forefront or in the background. This is a movie where you can get up to grab a drink and totally miss something you wish you hadn’t. Not to mention Baby Driver seriously has some of the best car chases in film period.
Entertainment Value: 10
It’s a movie that makes The French Connection car chase look like amateur night. There is so much going on, so many layers, that you will be hardpressed to be bored. It has the feel of an indie with blockbuster moments.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Moves at an extremely high clip. Even the dialogue scenes can feel action-driven at times due to the intensity of the conversation. It’s a movie that never really lets you get too comfortable, but rather continues to hit you repeatedly with more.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 8
While the ending is the weakest point of the movie, it doesn’t detract from the overall greatness of Baby Driver. I wasn’t blown away by the resolution, but it was complete enough to get a pass from me. Good, but not lifechanging.
Overall: 98
In addition to having great action, Baby Driver’s love story helps drive the movie (pun intended) as a whole. It’s movies like these I wish would get more love from the Academy as they help to keep the population in love with film. Proud to call this movie a classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s really hard not to love main character Baby (Ansel Elgort). Sure he’s helping criminals do criminal things but he has a great story and a solid motive. From the minute he shows up on screen beating his steering wheel to the music, you immediately want to root for this guy. Baby answers to Doc played by Kevin Spacey who reads the role with a controlled seriousness that forces you to focus on his every word. Doc along with an interesting gang of thugs make for a solid supporting cast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Whether it’s two lovebirds in a diner talking or a death-defying car chase, I really appreciate the way Edgar Wright uses different angles to capture the perfect moment. I don’t know how he did it, but the movie has an 80’s feel to it even though it takes place in modern day. The action sequences play out in amazing fashion on screen and keep the story moving.
Conflict: 10
So many angles to consider here. Will Baby get out of the game? Does he get the girl? Will the next heist be a success? Something seems to always be happening whether at the forefront or in the background. This is a movie where you can get up to grab a drink and totally miss something you wish you hadn’t. Not to mention Baby Driver seriously has some of the best car chases in film period.
Entertainment Value: 10
It’s a movie that makes The French Connection car chase look like amateur night. There is so much going on, so many layers, that you will be hardpressed to be bored. It has the feel of an indie with blockbuster moments.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Moves at an extremely high clip. Even the dialogue scenes can feel action-driven at times due to the intensity of the conversation. It’s a movie that never really lets you get too comfortable, but rather continues to hit you repeatedly with more.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 8
While the ending is the weakest point of the movie, it doesn’t detract from the overall greatness of Baby Driver. I wasn’t blown away by the resolution, but it was complete enough to get a pass from me. Good, but not lifechanging.
Overall: 98
In addition to having great action, Baby Driver’s love story helps drive the movie (pun intended) as a whole. It’s movies like these I wish would get more love from the Academy as they help to keep the population in love with film. Proud to call this movie a classic.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020 (Updated Feb 12, 2020)
Birds of Prey is a mixed bag, but there's just about enough good there to make it an enjoyable time.
I absolutely hated Suicide Squad, so naturally, didn't have high hopes for this. The film is aesthetically in the same vein, and carries a similar tone, but this time around, it mostly works.
One of the only things I liked in SS was Margot Robbie, so making her front and centre here is a smart move. She is undeniably the star, and even a cynical bastard like me has to admit, that she is a solid embodiment of Harley Quinn
The surrounding cast are unfortunately, under developed and have little impact. It's great to see characters like Black Canary, Huntress and Zsasz finally bought to the big screen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jurnee Smollett-Bell so a good job with what they're given, but the plots focus on Harley, and the films relatively brief runtime, leave little room for development past a flashback here and there, which is a shame.
The only character that comes close to matching the leading lady is Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis aka Black Mask. McGregor obviously relishes in making Sionis seedy, nasty, misogynistic, and flamboyant, and results in one of those villains that you can't wait to get stomped down. The two of them carry the film, no doubt.
The pacing and narrative structure is comparable to Deadpool, with a good chunk of the film being told through various flashbacks. It honestly feels messy for much of the first half, and the truth is, this structure is hiding a fairly thread bare plot.
When the movie catches up with itself, if you will, and moves forward with a more traditional story path, is where there movie started to shine a bit more. The mid section lost me a little bit, with the exception of the odd set piece (the scene in the police station looks incredible), but when Birds of Prey hits it's third act, it's a lot of dumb, beautifully shot fun. The whole final sequence is great, and instead of the overloaded CGI orgies that I've come to expect from the DCEU, we get given fantastically choreographed, practical fight scenes, full of colour, swearing, a surprisingly hard hitting violence.
I left the cinema talking about all the bits that I liked, a stark contrast to the vitriol I felt after seeing Suicide Squad. It's not perfect, it's messy, it's a little cheesy, and is maybe guilty of thinking it's better than it is, but all in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
Also, that car chase scene was ridiculous (in a good way 👍)
I absolutely hated Suicide Squad, so naturally, didn't have high hopes for this. The film is aesthetically in the same vein, and carries a similar tone, but this time around, it mostly works.
One of the only things I liked in SS was Margot Robbie, so making her front and centre here is a smart move. She is undeniably the star, and even a cynical bastard like me has to admit, that she is a solid embodiment of Harley Quinn
The surrounding cast are unfortunately, under developed and have little impact. It's great to see characters like Black Canary, Huntress and Zsasz finally bought to the big screen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jurnee Smollett-Bell so a good job with what they're given, but the plots focus on Harley, and the films relatively brief runtime, leave little room for development past a flashback here and there, which is a shame.
The only character that comes close to matching the leading lady is Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis aka Black Mask. McGregor obviously relishes in making Sionis seedy, nasty, misogynistic, and flamboyant, and results in one of those villains that you can't wait to get stomped down. The two of them carry the film, no doubt.
The pacing and narrative structure is comparable to Deadpool, with a good chunk of the film being told through various flashbacks. It honestly feels messy for much of the first half, and the truth is, this structure is hiding a fairly thread bare plot.
When the movie catches up with itself, if you will, and moves forward with a more traditional story path, is where there movie started to shine a bit more. The mid section lost me a little bit, with the exception of the odd set piece (the scene in the police station looks incredible), but when Birds of Prey hits it's third act, it's a lot of dumb, beautifully shot fun. The whole final sequence is great, and instead of the overloaded CGI orgies that I've come to expect from the DCEU, we get given fantastically choreographed, practical fight scenes, full of colour, swearing, a surprisingly hard hitting violence.
I left the cinema talking about all the bits that I liked, a stark contrast to the vitriol I felt after seeing Suicide Squad. It's not perfect, it's messy, it's a little cheesy, and is maybe guilty of thinking it's better than it is, but all in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
Also, that car chase scene was ridiculous (in a good way 👍)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
This doesn’t need to be a long review; the film itself doesn’t merit a lot of reflection. But, I have set myself the task of recording every piece of cultural media I consume, and there is already a backlog. So, here come a few quickfire bits on things that I found less than impressive. There is some value in identifying why something failed. Especially, as in the case of Glass, when there was an expectation it might be quite exciting.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
JT (287 KP) rated Predators (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Fans of the original Predator will no doubt have been excited to see the trailers for Predators, a script pulled from a filing cabinet in 1994 and given a 2010 make over by Robert Rodriguez, who produces, with Nimród Antal directing.
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) in Movies
Mar 11, 2020
Faster Than the Newer Films...But Also Much Worse
Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) tries to redeem himself from the first film by taking out a gang of car enthusiasts.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 6
Characters: 0
These characters are about as interesting as an empty takeout box. Not only is there no kind of depth whatsoever, I never really liked the characters to begin with. I can usually deal with characters not growing if they’re at least interesting, but 2 Fast 2 Furious gives us neither. The cars have more characters than the characters themselves. Might has well let them do the talking instead.
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
Speaking from the future, the car chases/race don’t nearly have the same impact as the latter films. In comparison, they are boring and stale and aren’t enough to carry the movie. Overall it’s shot in gimmicky fashion with lots of slowmo and near-misses. It is painful to watch at times.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 5
Sometimes a movie can be so bad that it keeps your interest solely for the fact that you want to see what crappity crap crap is going to happen next. I fell asleep on more than one occasion which is a horrible thing to say about a movie that revolves around car chases. There was little in the way of redemption here.
Memorability: 5
One line made me give this score above a zero, a line I will always remember for the rest of my days. At one point, Walker almost put me in a casket by saying, “I said forget about it, cuh.” This line has since become the source of a number of memes and Youtube clips and I can still burst into laughter if I were to watch it right now. Regarding everything else about the movie? Forget about it, cuh.
Pace: 9
If I’m holding it to the standard of the latter movies, I do have to acknowledge that the movie gets through its plot at a fairly quick pace. It is easily one of the shortest in the franchise as almost all of the others top two hours. Yes, it still put me to sleep, but only because the content sucked.
Plot: 4
Sports a story that my six-year-old nephew could have come up with. Barely believable, it has holes inside of holes. I almost wish they had just said, “Screw it. Just look at the cool cars.”
Resolution: 5
Overall: 49
Dumpster fire. Burning poop. A fly walking on a windowsill with only one wing. These are all things that are more interesting than 2 Fast 2 Furious. Talk about a nightmare.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 6
Characters: 0
These characters are about as interesting as an empty takeout box. Not only is there no kind of depth whatsoever, I never really liked the characters to begin with. I can usually deal with characters not growing if they’re at least interesting, but 2 Fast 2 Furious gives us neither. The cars have more characters than the characters themselves. Might has well let them do the talking instead.
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
Speaking from the future, the car chases/race don’t nearly have the same impact as the latter films. In comparison, they are boring and stale and aren’t enough to carry the movie. Overall it’s shot in gimmicky fashion with lots of slowmo and near-misses. It is painful to watch at times.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 5
Sometimes a movie can be so bad that it keeps your interest solely for the fact that you want to see what crappity crap crap is going to happen next. I fell asleep on more than one occasion which is a horrible thing to say about a movie that revolves around car chases. There was little in the way of redemption here.
Memorability: 5
One line made me give this score above a zero, a line I will always remember for the rest of my days. At one point, Walker almost put me in a casket by saying, “I said forget about it, cuh.” This line has since become the source of a number of memes and Youtube clips and I can still burst into laughter if I were to watch it right now. Regarding everything else about the movie? Forget about it, cuh.
Pace: 9
If I’m holding it to the standard of the latter movies, I do have to acknowledge that the movie gets through its plot at a fairly quick pace. It is easily one of the shortest in the franchise as almost all of the others top two hours. Yes, it still put me to sleep, but only because the content sucked.
Plot: 4
Sports a story that my six-year-old nephew could have come up with. Barely believable, it has holes inside of holes. I almost wish they had just said, “Screw it. Just look at the cool cars.”
Resolution: 5
Overall: 49
Dumpster fire. Burning poop. A fly walking on a windowsill with only one wing. These are all things that are more interesting than 2 Fast 2 Furious. Talk about a nightmare.
James Koppert (2698 KP) rated Thorn in Books
Mar 29, 2020
A Phenomenon
There are some young adults books, Harry Potter, Letter for the King, His Dark Materials that can be translated through the languages of the world and for decades or more, be held up as classics of young literature, deserved to be read and bring joy for all ages. Thorn deserves to be held up in equal company as these. I won't beat about the bush, this is an exceptional, beautiful entertaining tale deserving to be a global best-seller for many many years. If you read my reviews I don't thrust such extreme praise on everything I read, but Thorn is the type of book you end up taking a days holiday off work just to carry on engaging with this wonderful story.
Intisar Khanani is a very special writer, like Neil Gaiman, she takes the world and weaves an understated thread of magic and fantasy into the story that provides an undercurrent which bubbles to the surface. The fact it is understated brings you a acceptance without question of the world you are reading, so magic spells and talking horses are as accepted as characters eating a meal. Intisar Khanani's writing flows effortlessly. When you are reading a true master of the art, they write in a way where you forget you are reading at all and are simply viewing a world from the pages. This is such a book.
Thorn contains very human characters who you will feel a deep tenderness for. It contains morality and dilemma asking you to question whether you put your happiness first or the duty of bettering the world? What is justice and rule? Do you seek justice through revenge or lessons as just a few. Yet these moralities are not there to beat you round the head, they are part of the grain of the story where you raise the questions alongside that of the adorable lead character whose gentle female strength is ferocious, again in a beautifully subtle way.
I don't want to give away any of the plot, I want you t pick up the book and let it unravel before your eyes like I did. Be wicked away into a rich multicultural world full of what i hope are many stories yet to be told.
Thorn may not just be the best young adult book of the decade, it could well be one of the best fantasy novels as well, that will be read and then re-read for the next few decades and beyond. Intisar Khanani is about to be a global superstar and deserves every particle of light the spotlight is made up of shining on her.
Intisar Khanani is a very special writer, like Neil Gaiman, she takes the world and weaves an understated thread of magic and fantasy into the story that provides an undercurrent which bubbles to the surface. The fact it is understated brings you a acceptance without question of the world you are reading, so magic spells and talking horses are as accepted as characters eating a meal. Intisar Khanani's writing flows effortlessly. When you are reading a true master of the art, they write in a way where you forget you are reading at all and are simply viewing a world from the pages. This is such a book.
Thorn contains very human characters who you will feel a deep tenderness for. It contains morality and dilemma asking you to question whether you put your happiness first or the duty of bettering the world? What is justice and rule? Do you seek justice through revenge or lessons as just a few. Yet these moralities are not there to beat you round the head, they are part of the grain of the story where you raise the questions alongside that of the adorable lead character whose gentle female strength is ferocious, again in a beautifully subtle way.
I don't want to give away any of the plot, I want you t pick up the book and let it unravel before your eyes like I did. Be wicked away into a rich multicultural world full of what i hope are many stories yet to be told.
Thorn may not just be the best young adult book of the decade, it could well be one of the best fantasy novels as well, that will be read and then re-read for the next few decades and beyond. Intisar Khanani is about to be a global superstar and deserves every particle of light the spotlight is made up of shining on her.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Larry Crowne (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“Larry Crowne” is a movie (in the works since 2006) that stars Tom Hanks in the lead as Larry Crown and Julia Roberts as Mercedes Tainot, a disenchanted community college speech professor.
“Larry Crowne” tells the tale of a Navy veteran and recent divorce’ whom, after many years of tirelessly and loyally working at the same big-box store, is fired on the spot supposedly because of the fact that he does not have a college degree. Coincidentally at the same time the bank demands the money from the mortgage taken out on his home. With no options and on the advice of his next door neighbor Lamar (who tries to sell him a “free” college degree for 20 cents at his garage sale) Larry decides to enroll in community college From there the movie follows Larry as falls in love with his speech professor Dr. Mercedes Tainot (who is still married to some Internet businessman obsessed with large breasted women) while at the same time, being befriended by a “gang” of motor-scooter/vespa enthusiasts.
Now ….. normally I’m not the one to go see the stereotypical “feel good movie” of the season. Plus, I’m honestly not that big a fan of Julia Roberts. But come on ….. Personally, I cannot ever recall Tom Hanks in a bad movie and I have to admit it Julia Roberts had me laughing the minute she started talking. After the first 15 minutes of the movie, you have a pretty good idea of the general direction the movie will go in and how it will end. However, this is one of those movies where it’s more entertaining to see how the whole movie plays out despite that fact. The ensemble cast that Tom Hanks put together does an excellent job of keeping you on your seat laughing (including a hilarious performance by the great George Takei as a militant economics professor who is trying to pimp his new book very two minutes in his class). Plus, the movie does a great job keeping you focused on the story. Especially when the gang of motor-scooter enthusiasts seemingly appear out of nowhere to show him how NOT to dress like a cop and to explain the concept of “Fung Shui”.
The ensemble cast that includes Bryan Cranstson, Pam Grier, Cedric The Entertainer, Rob Riggle, Wilmer Valderama, and George Takei amongst many others supports the lead characters well.
All in all, I’d say this movie deserves 4 out of 5 stars. Not a movie you’d want to take the kids to due some sexual content and alcohol use in the movie. Definitely a great “Date Movie” though. Besides being slow at some points and it’s “predictability” I’d say it’s definitely worth your hard earned money. Go to a matinee showing or get it “on demand”.
“Larry Crowne” tells the tale of a Navy veteran and recent divorce’ whom, after many years of tirelessly and loyally working at the same big-box store, is fired on the spot supposedly because of the fact that he does not have a college degree. Coincidentally at the same time the bank demands the money from the mortgage taken out on his home. With no options and on the advice of his next door neighbor Lamar (who tries to sell him a “free” college degree for 20 cents at his garage sale) Larry decides to enroll in community college From there the movie follows Larry as falls in love with his speech professor Dr. Mercedes Tainot (who is still married to some Internet businessman obsessed with large breasted women) while at the same time, being befriended by a “gang” of motor-scooter/vespa enthusiasts.
Now ….. normally I’m not the one to go see the stereotypical “feel good movie” of the season. Plus, I’m honestly not that big a fan of Julia Roberts. But come on ….. Personally, I cannot ever recall Tom Hanks in a bad movie and I have to admit it Julia Roberts had me laughing the minute she started talking. After the first 15 minutes of the movie, you have a pretty good idea of the general direction the movie will go in and how it will end. However, this is one of those movies where it’s more entertaining to see how the whole movie plays out despite that fact. The ensemble cast that Tom Hanks put together does an excellent job of keeping you on your seat laughing (including a hilarious performance by the great George Takei as a militant economics professor who is trying to pimp his new book very two minutes in his class). Plus, the movie does a great job keeping you focused on the story. Especially when the gang of motor-scooter enthusiasts seemingly appear out of nowhere to show him how NOT to dress like a cop and to explain the concept of “Fung Shui”.
The ensemble cast that includes Bryan Cranstson, Pam Grier, Cedric The Entertainer, Rob Riggle, Wilmer Valderama, and George Takei amongst many others supports the lead characters well.
All in all, I’d say this movie deserves 4 out of 5 stars. Not a movie you’d want to take the kids to due some sexual content and alcohol use in the movie. Definitely a great “Date Movie” though. Besides being slow at some points and it’s “predictability” I’d say it’s definitely worth your hard earned money. Go to a matinee showing or get it “on demand”.
MAKEUP MATCH ME
Beauty, Lifestyle and Shopping
App
“YOUR COMPLETE MAKEUP COLOUR MATCHING TOOL TO SUIT YOU!” DO YOU OFTEN ASK QUESTIONS LIKE? ...