Search
Search results
Faris Badwan recommended track Jerusalem by Sleep in Dopesmoker by Sleep in Music (curated)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Soulmate Equation in Books
May 27, 2021
A witty & wonderful romance!!
Jess Davis is a single mom who loves crunching numbers almost as much as she loves her daughter Juno and her grandparents. They are her entire world and honestly, she doesn't have a lot of desire to step back into the dating world. It's just so much work. Then Jess and her best friend, Fizzy, hear about GenticAlly, a new dating site that predicts love through your DNA. Matchmaking through genetics and numbers? Jess could get behind that. But it's not until she's had a particularly bad, lonely day that she agrees to send in a sample. Suddenly she finds out she's matched with GeneticAlly's founder, Dr. River Pena at an unheard sky-high percentage of 98% compatibility. However, Jess is immediately skeptical because she knows River. And he's a pompous jerk. But River and GeneticAlly have a proposition for Jess. Go out with River, get to know him, and they'll pay her for her time. For struggling Jess, this is something she has to consider. As the two go to dinner and do press for GeneticAlly, Jess starts to see a different side of River--one that makes her wonder if there's something to this DNA matching idea after all.
"Her life, which essentially existed in a four-block radius, was exceedingly manageable as it was."
Oh this book was so good!! I love Christina Lauren's books, and I was already intrigued by the idea of a DNA matchmaking book. Well, THE SOULMATE EQUATION did not disappoint! It's sweet and funny and interesting--I loved it!
SOULMATE has wonderful banter--that patented CLo banter--between River and Jess, but also Jess and Fizzy. Jess is a statistician and Fizzy a romance writer and they spend many of their days in a coffee shop, "working." Their friendship is next level good and freaking hilarious. Honestly, it's one of the best parts of the book. So is Jess' relationship with her grandparents, who basically raised her after her mom, who struggled with addiction, left. And then there's Juno, the cute precocious kid, who shows up asking funny questions and making you chuckle. The cast of characters is top notch, for sure. I loved how well Jess' family was woven into the story.
As for River and Jess, their chemistry is superb. They start off on the wrong foot, with River coming across as a jerk, but it's not anything too terrible, which is good, because I can't handle the "hate to love" scenarios when the "hate" seems impossible for anyone to actually overcome. Instead, River is a nuanced character with his own backstory and personality. He's consumed by the science of relationships but too busy being a genius doctor workaholic to have one. And sweet Jess, you can't help but root for her: the tired mom who lacks the energy to even try to date anymore. There's lots of science and numbers, but nothing crazy for us non-mathematicians, and honestly, the genetics aspect is pretty fascinating. (Is this really possible, world?) I saw a bit of the big twist plot point coming, but it in no way diminished my enjoyment of the story.
Overall, this was a great read. Funny, witty, and heartfelt. Great couple with awesome chemistry. Wonderful cast of characters (Fizzy needs her own book!). The entire book made me smile--definitely recommend! 4.5 stars.
"Her life, which essentially existed in a four-block radius, was exceedingly manageable as it was."
Oh this book was so good!! I love Christina Lauren's books, and I was already intrigued by the idea of a DNA matchmaking book. Well, THE SOULMATE EQUATION did not disappoint! It's sweet and funny and interesting--I loved it!
SOULMATE has wonderful banter--that patented CLo banter--between River and Jess, but also Jess and Fizzy. Jess is a statistician and Fizzy a romance writer and they spend many of their days in a coffee shop, "working." Their friendship is next level good and freaking hilarious. Honestly, it's one of the best parts of the book. So is Jess' relationship with her grandparents, who basically raised her after her mom, who struggled with addiction, left. And then there's Juno, the cute precocious kid, who shows up asking funny questions and making you chuckle. The cast of characters is top notch, for sure. I loved how well Jess' family was woven into the story.
As for River and Jess, their chemistry is superb. They start off on the wrong foot, with River coming across as a jerk, but it's not anything too terrible, which is good, because I can't handle the "hate to love" scenarios when the "hate" seems impossible for anyone to actually overcome. Instead, River is a nuanced character with his own backstory and personality. He's consumed by the science of relationships but too busy being a genius doctor workaholic to have one. And sweet Jess, you can't help but root for her: the tired mom who lacks the energy to even try to date anymore. There's lots of science and numbers, but nothing crazy for us non-mathematicians, and honestly, the genetics aspect is pretty fascinating. (Is this really possible, world?) I saw a bit of the big twist plot point coming, but it in no way diminished my enjoyment of the story.
Overall, this was a great read. Funny, witty, and heartfelt. Great couple with awesome chemistry. Wonderful cast of characters (Fizzy needs her own book!). The entire book made me smile--definitely recommend! 4.5 stars.
Fred (860 KP) rated The Haunting of Bly Manor in TV
Oct 11, 2020
Yet another re-telling of The Turn of the Screw
This is a re-telling of The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, written in 1898. The last re-telling was 2020s The Turning, which was terrible. So how is this version?
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Every Time I Die (2019) in Movies
Oct 26, 2020
Not to be confused with No Time To Die, this indie supernatural thriller is lacking in big-budget polish and characters that you feel invested in, but manages to get by on an interesting concept and some sharp execution.
We begin with Sam (Drew Fonteiro), seeing what he sees as he gently blinks open his eyes to reveal Mia (Melissa Macedo) alongside him in bed. Sam has had a nightmare, and as he heads into the bathroom, he begins to experience an uncomfortable buzzing in his head, which leads to a blackout. When Sam comes around again, he’s crouched on the floor at work, with no memory as to how he arrived there. He’s wearing a paramedic uniform and holding a photo of two children, a brother and sister. On the back of the photo is written ‘remember Sara’.
Sam’s work colleague and friend, Jay (Marc Menchaca) invites Sam to join him and his wife Poppy (Michelle Macedo) at a lodge for the weekend. Poppy is the twin sister of Mia, who we saw in bed with Sam earlier and both Mia and her husband Tyler are also at the lodge. Tyler is a soldier, suffering from PTSD, and it’s clear that Sam and Mia have been having an affair behind his back, which now puts Sam in a bit of an awkward situation.
By this point, we’ve already witnessed Sam experiencing several more blackouts, including one while driving to the lodge. Each time, Sam has no recollection of what happened during the blackout, although a video recorded during one of the blackouts by his friends, shows that he does remain conscious and able to hold a conversation. Occasionally we get flashbacks and dream sequences which reveal that the brother and sister from the photo earlier are in fact Sam and his sister Sara, who drowned in a terrible accident when they were both children.
The first half of Every Time I Die is a slow, frustrating experience, not helped by the fact that the character of Sam is incredibly dull. Consequently, we feel no emotional connection to Sam, despite the childhood trauma he suffered and the turmoil he now experiences as an adult. Thankfully, the second half picks up when a jealous Tyler discovers that his wife has been cheating on him with Sam and murders Sam out by a lake in the forest. Thanks to the first-person perspective that was utilised earlier, we discover that Sam then transferred into the body of friend Jay, and must now try and convince his friends what Tyler has done. Not an easy task when Jay has a history of mental illness, leading the others to believe he’s had a relapse.
From there, Every Time I Die is just a roller coaster ride of clever ideas and twists, constantly dragged down by further flashbacks and confusing dream sequences, which are meant to help us and Sam understand what happened to him and his sister, but repeatedly stall the narrative momentum instead.
That being said, for the most part, I really enjoyed Every Time I Die. Aside from the slow first half, and the character of Sam, it’s well written, well crafted and with a satisfying, heart-warming finale.
We begin with Sam (Drew Fonteiro), seeing what he sees as he gently blinks open his eyes to reveal Mia (Melissa Macedo) alongside him in bed. Sam has had a nightmare, and as he heads into the bathroom, he begins to experience an uncomfortable buzzing in his head, which leads to a blackout. When Sam comes around again, he’s crouched on the floor at work, with no memory as to how he arrived there. He’s wearing a paramedic uniform and holding a photo of two children, a brother and sister. On the back of the photo is written ‘remember Sara’.
Sam’s work colleague and friend, Jay (Marc Menchaca) invites Sam to join him and his wife Poppy (Michelle Macedo) at a lodge for the weekend. Poppy is the twin sister of Mia, who we saw in bed with Sam earlier and both Mia and her husband Tyler are also at the lodge. Tyler is a soldier, suffering from PTSD, and it’s clear that Sam and Mia have been having an affair behind his back, which now puts Sam in a bit of an awkward situation.
By this point, we’ve already witnessed Sam experiencing several more blackouts, including one while driving to the lodge. Each time, Sam has no recollection of what happened during the blackout, although a video recorded during one of the blackouts by his friends, shows that he does remain conscious and able to hold a conversation. Occasionally we get flashbacks and dream sequences which reveal that the brother and sister from the photo earlier are in fact Sam and his sister Sara, who drowned in a terrible accident when they were both children.
The first half of Every Time I Die is a slow, frustrating experience, not helped by the fact that the character of Sam is incredibly dull. Consequently, we feel no emotional connection to Sam, despite the childhood trauma he suffered and the turmoil he now experiences as an adult. Thankfully, the second half picks up when a jealous Tyler discovers that his wife has been cheating on him with Sam and murders Sam out by a lake in the forest. Thanks to the first-person perspective that was utilised earlier, we discover that Sam then transferred into the body of friend Jay, and must now try and convince his friends what Tyler has done. Not an easy task when Jay has a history of mental illness, leading the others to believe he’s had a relapse.
From there, Every Time I Die is just a roller coaster ride of clever ideas and twists, constantly dragged down by further flashbacks and confusing dream sequences, which are meant to help us and Sam understand what happened to him and his sister, but repeatedly stall the narrative momentum instead.
That being said, for the most part, I really enjoyed Every Time I Die. Aside from the slow first half, and the character of Sam, it’s well written, well crafted and with a satisfying, heart-warming finale.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated George and Lizzie in Books
Oct 29, 2020
This is the seventh book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet.
In high school, Lizzie made a choice--one she soon regrets--participating in something called the Great Game. The event alters the course of her life forever, along with a passionate relationship that ends in college. These moments, plus the influence of Lizzie's psychologist parents, who offer her little support as a kid, turn her into a melancholy and unfulfilled adult. Her husband, George, however, comes from a happy childhood with loving parents. He adores his family and they him. He also worships Lizzie, giving the two an unbalanced marriage. Can George and Lizzie survive an union on such unequal ground?
I'll confess that this book was not what I was expecting--I thought it was going to be a cheerful love story and a pick-me-up. It is a love story, though, all the same. George loves Lizzie. Lizzie, though, is lost in a love from the past. I'm not going to lie: Lizzie is a very frustrating character and a hard one for whom to care. She doesn't appreciate George, nor, really, much of her life. Now, she was truly saddled with terrible parents, so you have to grant her that. Her fixation on her past relationship makes you want to shake her, though.
"And because for years and years the voices in her head never let Lizzie forget that the Great Game had been a stupid idea right from the beginning and that she'd been an idiot for participating in it, her past was always there, a living thing. It shaped her present and future."
And of, of course, there is the Great Game--the event from high school which alters Lizzie's future. We can understand why Lizzie is Lizzie, but we can't always forgive her for her Lizzie type ways. Also, please note, there are a lot of football references in this book. A lot. I like football, but I'm not sure everyone who picks up a book like this will feel the same.
The story of George and Lizzie is told in very short vignettes (each with a title) that slowly move forward in time and alternate with Lizzie's past, mainly focusing on the Great Game, which so defined her life. This format takes much getting used to. There is no linear story here, but tiny bits and pieces of narrative from George and Lizzie. I almost abandoned the book when I first started--I couldn't get in the groove (and honestly, it's depressing). When I reluctantly returned to it a few days later, more prepared for the format, I could read it more easily.
In the end, I can't say I enjoyed this story. If I rated it purely on "like" factor, it would probably be a two-star read. Incorporating in Lizzie's life experiences and how a few things slowly grew on me, I'm giving this three stars, but only barely. (Also, I have real issues with how many kids from Lizzie's high school football team went on to the NFL. Maybe it's possible, but it seems insane.) 3 stars, but only eked out when they brought the chains out on the field to measure (too much?).
In high school, Lizzie made a choice--one she soon regrets--participating in something called the Great Game. The event alters the course of her life forever, along with a passionate relationship that ends in college. These moments, plus the influence of Lizzie's psychologist parents, who offer her little support as a kid, turn her into a melancholy and unfulfilled adult. Her husband, George, however, comes from a happy childhood with loving parents. He adores his family and they him. He also worships Lizzie, giving the two an unbalanced marriage. Can George and Lizzie survive an union on such unequal ground?
I'll confess that this book was not what I was expecting--I thought it was going to be a cheerful love story and a pick-me-up. It is a love story, though, all the same. George loves Lizzie. Lizzie, though, is lost in a love from the past. I'm not going to lie: Lizzie is a very frustrating character and a hard one for whom to care. She doesn't appreciate George, nor, really, much of her life. Now, she was truly saddled with terrible parents, so you have to grant her that. Her fixation on her past relationship makes you want to shake her, though.
"And because for years and years the voices in her head never let Lizzie forget that the Great Game had been a stupid idea right from the beginning and that she'd been an idiot for participating in it, her past was always there, a living thing. It shaped her present and future."
And of, of course, there is the Great Game--the event from high school which alters Lizzie's future. We can understand why Lizzie is Lizzie, but we can't always forgive her for her Lizzie type ways. Also, please note, there are a lot of football references in this book. A lot. I like football, but I'm not sure everyone who picks up a book like this will feel the same.
The story of George and Lizzie is told in very short vignettes (each with a title) that slowly move forward in time and alternate with Lizzie's past, mainly focusing on the Great Game, which so defined her life. This format takes much getting used to. There is no linear story here, but tiny bits and pieces of narrative from George and Lizzie. I almost abandoned the book when I first started--I couldn't get in the groove (and honestly, it's depressing). When I reluctantly returned to it a few days later, more prepared for the format, I could read it more easily.
In the end, I can't say I enjoyed this story. If I rated it purely on "like" factor, it would probably be a two-star read. Incorporating in Lizzie's life experiences and how a few things slowly grew on me, I'm giving this three stars, but only barely. (Also, I have real issues with how many kids from Lizzie's high school football team went on to the NFL. Maybe it's possible, but it seems insane.) 3 stars, but only eked out when they brought the chains out on the field to measure (too much?).
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A group of Roman legionnaires in Britain are sent on a mission to find a group of missing messengers only to find themselves attacked by something that comes out with the full moon.
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Aug 6, 2020
Much like Eurovision itself, this film shouldn’t be entertaining in any way, but after watching it for ten minutes it becomes a compelling car crash you kinda have to see out to the end. It doesn’t really matter what you think of the songs, you are watching it waiting for the one thing you can make fun of, rubbing your eyes in disbelief that anything so camp and lame can exist.
Will Ferrell understands this of course. There is so much about the weird world of Eurovision to make fun of. The naff music, the costumes, the lost in translation moments from obscure countries trying their best and mostly failing to realise how daft they look. Enjoying this film depends on how funny you find Ferrell, not on any love of cheesy pop songs. Fortunately, I find him usually hilarious.
Not that every joke lands, or even makes sense at all. It is as bizarre as the contest itself; you just have to leave your brain at the door and go with it. There is a lot to like. Not least the adorable and consistently watchable Rachel McAdams who seems the perfect choice to play Sigrit, the girl dreaming of having the world hear her sing and strive for her spirit note. There is also an odd turn from Pierce Brosnan, who makes no effort whatsoever to make it good, and comes full circle in being so bad it’s amazing.
The joke is that they are from Iceland, who never win the thing, or ever come close. The country itself doesn’t want to win, as they would have to pay for it next year, so, after a bizarre accident where every other candidate explodes, they turn to the naive duo of Fire Saga, who are guaranteed to be a joke. And they are. But of course we are on their side, as they live the dream and go for underdog glory. What can go wrong does, and every comedy trope in the book is trotted out, along with a huge dose of sentimentality.
Naturally there is music. Ranging from the excruciating to the actually not too bad, to the hmmm, I actual like that! One highlight is a montage piece in the middle, as all contestants jam at a pre-final party – just so much fun and a totally catchy song. I am not entirely ashamed to say that it kinda got me. The pathos leading up to the climax hit me in the vulnerable feels, as I lay on a Sunday morning helpfully hung-over and tender. This is the way to watch it, I feel, or, you know, with young kids, who will lap up the silliness and talent show sensibility.
Look, it’s terrible on any artistic or serious level. The script is a mess, the direction could have been phoned in by a chimp, and the plot serves to say nothing new or inciteful, but it doesn’t matter. Watch it, have a chuckle and then throw it away. I can think of many less innocent comedies that are far less worthy of attention. And at the very least, there is a bit with elves that had me pressing pause till I got all my laughs out.
Pick a day when you have no energy to fight the world or string two thoughts together and just enjoy it.
Decinemal Rating: 63
Will Ferrell understands this of course. There is so much about the weird world of Eurovision to make fun of. The naff music, the costumes, the lost in translation moments from obscure countries trying their best and mostly failing to realise how daft they look. Enjoying this film depends on how funny you find Ferrell, not on any love of cheesy pop songs. Fortunately, I find him usually hilarious.
Not that every joke lands, or even makes sense at all. It is as bizarre as the contest itself; you just have to leave your brain at the door and go with it. There is a lot to like. Not least the adorable and consistently watchable Rachel McAdams who seems the perfect choice to play Sigrit, the girl dreaming of having the world hear her sing and strive for her spirit note. There is also an odd turn from Pierce Brosnan, who makes no effort whatsoever to make it good, and comes full circle in being so bad it’s amazing.
The joke is that they are from Iceland, who never win the thing, or ever come close. The country itself doesn’t want to win, as they would have to pay for it next year, so, after a bizarre accident where every other candidate explodes, they turn to the naive duo of Fire Saga, who are guaranteed to be a joke. And they are. But of course we are on their side, as they live the dream and go for underdog glory. What can go wrong does, and every comedy trope in the book is trotted out, along with a huge dose of sentimentality.
Naturally there is music. Ranging from the excruciating to the actually not too bad, to the hmmm, I actual like that! One highlight is a montage piece in the middle, as all contestants jam at a pre-final party – just so much fun and a totally catchy song. I am not entirely ashamed to say that it kinda got me. The pathos leading up to the climax hit me in the vulnerable feels, as I lay on a Sunday morning helpfully hung-over and tender. This is the way to watch it, I feel, or, you know, with young kids, who will lap up the silliness and talent show sensibility.
Look, it’s terrible on any artistic or serious level. The script is a mess, the direction could have been phoned in by a chimp, and the plot serves to say nothing new or inciteful, but it doesn’t matter. Watch it, have a chuckle and then throw it away. I can think of many less innocent comedies that are far less worthy of attention. And at the very least, there is a bit with elves that had me pressing pause till I got all my laughs out.
Pick a day when you have no energy to fight the world or string two thoughts together and just enjoy it.
Decinemal Rating: 63
Fred (860 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 16, 2020
Enjoyable enough
The movie was enjoyable enough & I would probably watch it again, just to try to catch the little Hanna-Barbera references throughout it. The movie starts with the meeting of the gang & then, using a very cool remake of the original theme song sequence, moves ahead to when the gang are already seasoned "monster" hunters. But although I did enjoy it, it had a lot of problems.
Most notably, the voice acting. For some reason, instead of sticking with the current actors who do the character's voices, they decided to replace them with more well known actors. Problem is, most of them sound nothing like the characters, it kind of throws everything off. Will Forte may be the exception as his Shaggy is close enough & of course we do have Scooby's current voice, Frank Welker as Scooby. But then, this is where it gets silly. You have Frank Welker, the original voice of Fred in your movie, but you decide not to use him as Fred. WTF? Really? So you got Fred, Velma & Daphnie played by actors that sound nothing like the characters. Quick mention too about the voices of the main characters when they were kids. Terrible & annoying (quick enough?). The movie also features Blue Falcon & Dyno-Mutt. Since this is not supposed to be the original Blue Falcon, his voice change is acceptable. However, Ken Jeong is just a weird choice for Dyno-Mutt. The character has no personality & is nothing like the character should be. And to be honest, I didn't like the role reversal of Falcon being a coward & Dyno-Mutt not being a screw-up. The main villain of the film, Dick Dastardly, is voiced well, but just like the others, sounds nothing like the original voices, so it throws it off. In fact, if they had not said his name was Dick Dastardly, I would have no idea it was supposed to be Dick Dastardly.
So now, let's talk about Dick Dastardly. In the cartoons, it was either just he & his dog Muttley being the bad guys or he had a few others try to help him. But in this film, they instead have him with a whole slew of robot minions, who I guess were supposed to be like the Minions of Despicable Me, but these guys have no personality at all & the character & the film suffer because of this.
There is also another character in the film. She's Blue Falcon's.....something. Sidekick? Helper? I don't remember her name, nor do I care. She is utterly forgettable & useless. But she's the only person of color I can think of in the movie, so I guess that's why she's there. That's fine, but I wish she had a more prominent role, rather than just be there to fill a gap.
So, why did I like the movie then? Well, it's fun & there were many times I laughed out loud. there were jokes that kid's would definitely not get, that I did. The animation is top-notch & beautiful to watch. There is also a lot of nostalgia factor, whether you're a fan of Scooby or of the dozens of other Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the 70s. The story works well enough, for a Scooby Doo movie& the pacing is nice. There are no points where the movie gets slow or boring. Like I said, I'd probably watch it again & that's good enough.
Most notably, the voice acting. For some reason, instead of sticking with the current actors who do the character's voices, they decided to replace them with more well known actors. Problem is, most of them sound nothing like the characters, it kind of throws everything off. Will Forte may be the exception as his Shaggy is close enough & of course we do have Scooby's current voice, Frank Welker as Scooby. But then, this is where it gets silly. You have Frank Welker, the original voice of Fred in your movie, but you decide not to use him as Fred. WTF? Really? So you got Fred, Velma & Daphnie played by actors that sound nothing like the characters. Quick mention too about the voices of the main characters when they were kids. Terrible & annoying (quick enough?). The movie also features Blue Falcon & Dyno-Mutt. Since this is not supposed to be the original Blue Falcon, his voice change is acceptable. However, Ken Jeong is just a weird choice for Dyno-Mutt. The character has no personality & is nothing like the character should be. And to be honest, I didn't like the role reversal of Falcon being a coward & Dyno-Mutt not being a screw-up. The main villain of the film, Dick Dastardly, is voiced well, but just like the others, sounds nothing like the original voices, so it throws it off. In fact, if they had not said his name was Dick Dastardly, I would have no idea it was supposed to be Dick Dastardly.
So now, let's talk about Dick Dastardly. In the cartoons, it was either just he & his dog Muttley being the bad guys or he had a few others try to help him. But in this film, they instead have him with a whole slew of robot minions, who I guess were supposed to be like the Minions of Despicable Me, but these guys have no personality at all & the character & the film suffer because of this.
There is also another character in the film. She's Blue Falcon's.....something. Sidekick? Helper? I don't remember her name, nor do I care. She is utterly forgettable & useless. But she's the only person of color I can think of in the movie, so I guess that's why she's there. That's fine, but I wish she had a more prominent role, rather than just be there to fill a gap.
So, why did I like the movie then? Well, it's fun & there were many times I laughed out loud. there were jokes that kid's would definitely not get, that I did. The animation is top-notch & beautiful to watch. There is also a lot of nostalgia factor, whether you're a fan of Scooby or of the dozens of other Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the 70s. The story works well enough, for a Scooby Doo movie& the pacing is nice. There are no points where the movie gets slow or boring. Like I said, I'd probably watch it again & that's good enough.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bel Canto (2018) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
The novel of Bel Canto is one of my favourites, and though I haven't read it for years I still recommend it to people. When I saw that they'd made a film of it I was ecstatic. But of course my luck wasn't working well! No mainstream release in the UK and seemingly not available in any way to see, then on a whim I searched Amazon and there it was, available as a digital release... GIMME!!
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
