Search
Search results
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The Dark Net in Books
Jan 26, 2019
Eye-opening!
For those who don’t know, the dark net is hidden seedier internet just below the regular surface internet. In this work of non-fiction, Bartlett explores the dark net’s various elusive and somewhat criminal goings-on; often going out of his way in the name of research.
The book kicks off with a dramatic introduction, talking about the Assassination Market. The assassination market is basically an online list of names and dates. Participants bet on what date an individual on the list will die. If a bet is correctly “guessed”, the winner walks away with all the winnings. Unfortunately, this was the shortest chapter and had the least amount of research made evident.
The drama continues in the following chapter which is about trolling, however this chapter read like a history book, and didn’t live up to the precedent set in the introduction. Shortly afterward though, Bartlett goes on to talk about one-man political parties, who set up several accounts on several sites to get their propaganda trending.
Later on Bartlett journeys into the strange real world community of Calafou. Here he meets cypherpunks and explains the crypto-currency Bitcoin to the reader. This unfortunately was another rather drab chapter.
The shortest chapter following the introduction was entitled “Three clicks”, which was named so when the author tried to find out how long it would take him to find child porn using free software known as “The Onion Router” and the “Hidden Wiki”. (Of course the author reported it to the police.)
There’s also a chapter on pro-anorexia and pro-self-harm sites.
And when I said the author often went out of his way in the name of research, I wasn’t kidding! The author went on the online “Silk Road” to purchase a very small amount of marijuana! And later still Bartlett is in the actual bedroom of a webcam star as she performs a rude show with 3 other women!
Reading a book on the dark net is the closest I’m ever going to get to actually using the dark net, so I wanted a lot from this book. I learned that the dark net would be pretty easy to navigate if I really wanted to use it. That said there was nothing in the book that would entice me to do anything that might involve covering my tracks.
So although there were a couple of chapters that were unnecessarily long, the other chapters definitely made up for it! Aside from the lack of detail on the Assassination Market, the remainder of the book appears well researched, with a lot of face to face and online meetings between the author and the people in the know.
The book kicks off with a dramatic introduction, talking about the Assassination Market. The assassination market is basically an online list of names and dates. Participants bet on what date an individual on the list will die. If a bet is correctly “guessed”, the winner walks away with all the winnings. Unfortunately, this was the shortest chapter and had the least amount of research made evident.
The drama continues in the following chapter which is about trolling, however this chapter read like a history book, and didn’t live up to the precedent set in the introduction. Shortly afterward though, Bartlett goes on to talk about one-man political parties, who set up several accounts on several sites to get their propaganda trending.
Later on Bartlett journeys into the strange real world community of Calafou. Here he meets cypherpunks and explains the crypto-currency Bitcoin to the reader. This unfortunately was another rather drab chapter.
The shortest chapter following the introduction was entitled “Three clicks”, which was named so when the author tried to find out how long it would take him to find child porn using free software known as “The Onion Router” and the “Hidden Wiki”. (Of course the author reported it to the police.)
There’s also a chapter on pro-anorexia and pro-self-harm sites.
And when I said the author often went out of his way in the name of research, I wasn’t kidding! The author went on the online “Silk Road” to purchase a very small amount of marijuana! And later still Bartlett is in the actual bedroom of a webcam star as she performs a rude show with 3 other women!
Reading a book on the dark net is the closest I’m ever going to get to actually using the dark net, so I wanted a lot from this book. I learned that the dark net would be pretty easy to navigate if I really wanted to use it. That said there was nothing in the book that would entice me to do anything that might involve covering my tracks.
So although there were a couple of chapters that were unnecessarily long, the other chapters definitely made up for it! Aside from the lack of detail on the Assassination Market, the remainder of the book appears well researched, with a lot of face to face and online meetings between the author and the people in the know.
Debbiereadsbook (1421 KP) rated Behind the Iron Cross in Books
Dec 27, 2018
love love LOVED this one!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
A sensual heiress, a wounded playboy and the soldier who will serve them both.
Oh I liked this one, I liked it a LOT!!!
Meet Kat, a wealthy business woman trying to help expand her company and repair a very damaged Germany after WW1. Meet Sam, Kat's best friend, fiancee, and her dead brother's lover. And Friedrich, a decommissioned soldier forced to sell his body to keep his widowed sister-in-law and her baby fed.
Like I said, liked it A LOT!
The scene is set with Friedrich going to the club Kat and Sam frequent for the first time. There is am immediate connection between the three, and it burns bright through the whole book. I didn't find it as explicit as some BDSM or menage books, but that might be just me. It IS sexy, oh yes, don't think that it isn't, and what is here is very well written. Maybe it's because a lot of words used were from that time, and not today's words for things. I didn't mind that I didn't find it as explicit, I just needed to mention it!
I LOVED how it all worked though! Kat is a Dom; Sam, a confirmed homosexual (but he can be with women, should he and Kat actually get married and need to produce an heir!) and Friedrich is the glue that binds all three of them together. Kat shows him all kinds of things that he didn't even know existed and Sam shows him just how good it is to be with a man.
I liked the business espionage line, wasn't sure how that was gonna go and I do so love being kept on my toes!
And I absolutely LOVED the solution that Sam comes up with to get Friedrich, Elise and Rudi out of Germany; to give Kat a husband; to give Sam a wife AND heir and for the three of them to be together back in the States. I was reading when Sam was talking and I'm thinking "What the bloody hell is he going on about?" And then, ping! Light bulb moment just a fraction of a sentence before Sam laid it out! Loved it!
First I've read of this author, unless there is something tucked away in a bo x set I might have read. I'd like to read more!
You know what?? I wrote 4.5 stars at the top pf the page when I sat down to write this up, but now? I can't think why I did that, or what to take the half star off for, so . . . .
5 full stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
A sensual heiress, a wounded playboy and the soldier who will serve them both.
Oh I liked this one, I liked it a LOT!!!
Meet Kat, a wealthy business woman trying to help expand her company and repair a very damaged Germany after WW1. Meet Sam, Kat's best friend, fiancee, and her dead brother's lover. And Friedrich, a decommissioned soldier forced to sell his body to keep his widowed sister-in-law and her baby fed.
Like I said, liked it A LOT!
The scene is set with Friedrich going to the club Kat and Sam frequent for the first time. There is am immediate connection between the three, and it burns bright through the whole book. I didn't find it as explicit as some BDSM or menage books, but that might be just me. It IS sexy, oh yes, don't think that it isn't, and what is here is very well written. Maybe it's because a lot of words used were from that time, and not today's words for things. I didn't mind that I didn't find it as explicit, I just needed to mention it!
I LOVED how it all worked though! Kat is a Dom; Sam, a confirmed homosexual (but he can be with women, should he and Kat actually get married and need to produce an heir!) and Friedrich is the glue that binds all three of them together. Kat shows him all kinds of things that he didn't even know existed and Sam shows him just how good it is to be with a man.
I liked the business espionage line, wasn't sure how that was gonna go and I do so love being kept on my toes!
And I absolutely LOVED the solution that Sam comes up with to get Friedrich, Elise and Rudi out of Germany; to give Kat a husband; to give Sam a wife AND heir and for the three of them to be together back in the States. I was reading when Sam was talking and I'm thinking "What the bloody hell is he going on about?" And then, ping! Light bulb moment just a fraction of a sentence before Sam laid it out! Loved it!
First I've read of this author, unless there is something tucked away in a bo x set I might have read. I'd like to read more!
You know what?? I wrote 4.5 stars at the top pf the page when I sat down to write this up, but now? I can't think why I did that, or what to take the half star off for, so . . . .
5 full stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us in Books
Jul 23, 2019
This book has one of the best forewords I've ever seen. Bornstein explains that since 1994, when the book was first published, language has changed a lot, and terms that were used regularly then, like transsexual, are highly offensive now. So she has heavily rewritten the book to change the language, but she goes on to say that language is an always-changing thing, and in five or six years this edition, too, might be offensive in the language used. Then she apologizes for that. My favorite lines are one of the last paragraphs of the foreword:
"Now, if anything you read in this book makes you feel bad or wrong or small and weak, then please know that I said something wrong. This book was written many years ago, and the culture I wrote it in is not the culture in which you're reading it. So, if you find anything to be personally insulting, please accept my apology and keep reading with the knowledge that your identity and how you express your gender are correct only when you feel they are correct."
It was a wonderful note to start the book on. I just loved "if you are offended, if this invalidates your identity, then I AM WRONG." Bornstein transitioned in the 80s, and has been an outspoken advocate of queer and trans people most of her life. She is definitely a figure in queer history that more people should read about.
The rest of the book is every bit as good as the foreword. Bornstein absolutely destroys the concept of gender in this book, dissecting it and looking at all the parts and pieces to attempt to figure out why society is so set on the binary system. She more than makes her case that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or. And not just a spectrum between "more male" and "more female" but a colorful kaleidoscope of gender expression and identity. She does not shy away from sensitive topics like surgeries and anatomy. She talks to the reader like she's your favorite outrageous aunt, sitting in the family room gossiping over heavily-spiked tea.
The formatting was occasionally confusing; she has the usual justified text, but then she has left-aligned passages (usually quotes from other people) and right-aligned passages (side-bar like content; I'm unclear if these are notes she made on the original text or what, but it generally clarifies or alters what the main text is talking about.)
I would HIGHLY recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about gender issues. Bornstein has an incredibly entertaining way of writing, and she loves to challenge what we think of as gender.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
"Now, if anything you read in this book makes you feel bad or wrong or small and weak, then please know that I said something wrong. This book was written many years ago, and the culture I wrote it in is not the culture in which you're reading it. So, if you find anything to be personally insulting, please accept my apology and keep reading with the knowledge that your identity and how you express your gender are correct only when you feel they are correct."
It was a wonderful note to start the book on. I just loved "if you are offended, if this invalidates your identity, then I AM WRONG." Bornstein transitioned in the 80s, and has been an outspoken advocate of queer and trans people most of her life. She is definitely a figure in queer history that more people should read about.
The rest of the book is every bit as good as the foreword. Bornstein absolutely destroys the concept of gender in this book, dissecting it and looking at all the parts and pieces to attempt to figure out why society is so set on the binary system. She more than makes her case that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or. And not just a spectrum between "more male" and "more female" but a colorful kaleidoscope of gender expression and identity. She does not shy away from sensitive topics like surgeries and anatomy. She talks to the reader like she's your favorite outrageous aunt, sitting in the family room gossiping over heavily-spiked tea.
The formatting was occasionally confusing; she has the usual justified text, but then she has left-aligned passages (usually quotes from other people) and right-aligned passages (side-bar like content; I'm unclear if these are notes she made on the original text or what, but it generally clarifies or alters what the main text is talking about.)
I would HIGHLY recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about gender issues. Bornstein has an incredibly entertaining way of writing, and she loves to challenge what we think of as gender.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Shadow (Pendulum #2) in Books
Nov 25, 2019
Shadow is the second book in the Pendulum series of novels by Will Elliott. Following on immediately from the first book, The Pilgrims (reviewed previously) it follows the adventures of Eric, a regular guy who ends up in the mysterious and dangerious world of Levaal.
Taking up the story where the predecessor left off, this is a book of regrouping and answers. Following the destruction of the wall between the two halves of Levaal seemingly unstoppable forces are unleashed. The pendulum has started to swing - and signals the end of life on Levaal if it is not stopped.
This book is one of regrouping and answers. The various players were scattered at the end of the first book and now some of them arrive at the same destination. We also have answers to a number of questions from the first book, which given how many questions there were really is a considerable relief. Mysterious protagonists with opaque drives are all very well (and probably required these days to raise any story above the rest) but it is really good to see that Elliott really does know what is going on (even if as a reader it still not entirely clear). The description of how magic works was particularly good, and as with the first book this is a really strong point in the creation of the mythology here.
Most of the characters are the same faces, but there are a few new ones. Most notably Shadow who is referred to a couple of times in the first book (mostly in terms of Eric potentially being Shadow). The title character appears here as a main character and drives most of the plot. Clearly a being of power, the back story of where Shadow came from and why is also touched on. The great dragons who apparently rule the world also take a more direct hand and are as devious and manipulative as expected.
Meanwhile the Arch Mage is losing control of Vous as he nears godhood and the unpredictable destruction wrought by Vous is creating a dangerous instability as the forces representing the Castle fragment into their own factions, each with their own agenda,
The writing continues to be strong, the story moves again at some pace although inevitably there is a lot more talking and exposition as the nature of the threats are explained. Elliott's inventiveness is not diminished with more odd characters and situations and locations at every turn.
Although light on actual plot, this book is clearly required as a bridge between the first book and the third, giving the reader enough information to understand exactly what is going on before what is shaping up to be a strong and no doubt surprising finale.
Taking up the story where the predecessor left off, this is a book of regrouping and answers. Following the destruction of the wall between the two halves of Levaal seemingly unstoppable forces are unleashed. The pendulum has started to swing - and signals the end of life on Levaal if it is not stopped.
This book is one of regrouping and answers. The various players were scattered at the end of the first book and now some of them arrive at the same destination. We also have answers to a number of questions from the first book, which given how many questions there were really is a considerable relief. Mysterious protagonists with opaque drives are all very well (and probably required these days to raise any story above the rest) but it is really good to see that Elliott really does know what is going on (even if as a reader it still not entirely clear). The description of how magic works was particularly good, and as with the first book this is a really strong point in the creation of the mythology here.
Most of the characters are the same faces, but there are a few new ones. Most notably Shadow who is referred to a couple of times in the first book (mostly in terms of Eric potentially being Shadow). The title character appears here as a main character and drives most of the plot. Clearly a being of power, the back story of where Shadow came from and why is also touched on. The great dragons who apparently rule the world also take a more direct hand and are as devious and manipulative as expected.
Meanwhile the Arch Mage is losing control of Vous as he nears godhood and the unpredictable destruction wrought by Vous is creating a dangerous instability as the forces representing the Castle fragment into their own factions, each with their own agenda,
The writing continues to be strong, the story moves again at some pace although inevitably there is a lot more talking and exposition as the nature of the threats are explained. Elliott's inventiveness is not diminished with more odd characters and situations and locations at every turn.
Although light on actual plot, this book is clearly required as a bridge between the first book and the third, giving the reader enough information to understand exactly what is going on before what is shaping up to be a strong and no doubt surprising finale.
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 (3776 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!