Search
Search results
Amanda (96 KP) rated Five Feet Apart in Books
Jul 7, 2019
I FINALLY finished this book and it took forever to do so. I remember starting this book a while back and I just had a difficult time getting through this story. I couldn't pin point as to why it was difficult to finish, and to this day, I really still can't.
This book had/has so much hype and more so when the movie was released. I almost skipped the book and watched the movie because of who was playing the Will character, but I decided against it and went for the book first.
First and foremost, the cover is absolutely gorgeous! I wanted to get the book with the original cover and I sometimes just stare at it. I understand why there is a re-release of the book with the movie poster on the covers, but to me, it takes away from the author and the publisher. I try my best NOT to buy the books with the movie posters.
So we have two teenagers, Stella and Will, whom both have Cystic Fibrosis. In a nutshell, this disease affects the lungs and digestive system. The lungs fill rapidly with mucus and makes it difficult to breathe. The highly big part, and the main story of this novel, is that two people with the SAME disease have to stay a minimum of six feet apart. That is because one of them could get worse, or die, just from the others contamination.
Stella is optimistic and uploads YouTube videos and tries to keep her parents notified and tries to not think about her older sister being gone.
Will has not so much as given up, but more like kind of goes with the flow of his condition. So much so that he lets his friends use his hospital room as a 'hook up' area. Such a nice guy, don't you think?
Anyway, so these two don't really like each other at first but feelings are developed over bonding of memories and Stella getting Will to get back to doing his treatments on a regular basis. The story starts that they have to be six feet apart, but Stella pushes the boundary and keeps it at five feet apart - hence the title.
I hate to say this, but I had a hard time connecting with either one of these characters. The only one I really somewhat liked was Poe.
I can see the whole similarity with this book and The Fault in Our Stars, but I can't compare the two. Because, in TFIOS, they had cancer and didn't have to stay away from each other. And to me, those characters were easier to connect with than Will and Stella. I'm not saying I didn't like them, but I just couldn't connect.
Stella basically lives so her parents don't fall a part and Will is just kind of 'whatever' about the whole thing because he sees no future for himself, or a treatment that will help him.
I don't really see the hype in this story. It felt rushed to me as well. I'm not sure if it's because the story was kind of short for the plot. Maybe it's because we didn't get a lot of story. I'm not fond of how it was written. It was almost written like it was going to be a movie so it was scripted.
I'm not saying it was a bad story. It really wasn't. I just feel like there was something missing and I couldn't really feel much for these two characters. I couldn't fathom some of the decisions and through process that Stella has done.
All in all, not a terrible story, but I don't see what the hype was about and I don't think I'll be watching the movie.
This book had/has so much hype and more so when the movie was released. I almost skipped the book and watched the movie because of who was playing the Will character, but I decided against it and went for the book first.
First and foremost, the cover is absolutely gorgeous! I wanted to get the book with the original cover and I sometimes just stare at it. I understand why there is a re-release of the book with the movie poster on the covers, but to me, it takes away from the author and the publisher. I try my best NOT to buy the books with the movie posters.
So we have two teenagers, Stella and Will, whom both have Cystic Fibrosis. In a nutshell, this disease affects the lungs and digestive system. The lungs fill rapidly with mucus and makes it difficult to breathe. The highly big part, and the main story of this novel, is that two people with the SAME disease have to stay a minimum of six feet apart. That is because one of them could get worse, or die, just from the others contamination.
Stella is optimistic and uploads YouTube videos and tries to keep her parents notified and tries to not think about her older sister being gone.
Will has not so much as given up, but more like kind of goes with the flow of his condition. So much so that he lets his friends use his hospital room as a 'hook up' area. Such a nice guy, don't you think?
Anyway, so these two don't really like each other at first but feelings are developed over bonding of memories and Stella getting Will to get back to doing his treatments on a regular basis. The story starts that they have to be six feet apart, but Stella pushes the boundary and keeps it at five feet apart - hence the title.
I hate to say this, but I had a hard time connecting with either one of these characters. The only one I really somewhat liked was Poe.
I can see the whole similarity with this book and The Fault in Our Stars, but I can't compare the two. Because, in TFIOS, they had cancer and didn't have to stay away from each other. And to me, those characters were easier to connect with than Will and Stella. I'm not saying I didn't like them, but I just couldn't connect.
Stella basically lives so her parents don't fall a part and Will is just kind of 'whatever' about the whole thing because he sees no future for himself, or a treatment that will help him.
I don't really see the hype in this story. It felt rushed to me as well. I'm not sure if it's because the story was kind of short for the plot. Maybe it's because we didn't get a lot of story. I'm not fond of how it was written. It was almost written like it was going to be a movie so it was scripted.
I'm not saying it was a bad story. It really wasn't. I just feel like there was something missing and I couldn't really feel much for these two characters. I couldn't fathom some of the decisions and through process that Stella has done.
All in all, not a terrible story, but I don't see what the hype was about and I don't think I'll be watching the movie.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Into the disturbing mind of a serial killer..
The human mind is still one of those ultimate enigmas of life. How does it work exactly? Nature vs. nurture? What causes some of us to devote their lives to philanthropy and helping others whilst others of us are deeply disturbed devoting their existence to the destruction of life for their twisted, demented pleasure?
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Nov 30, 2019
Anna's character development (1 more)
Reindeer
Songs (1 more)
Olaf
Having arrived at the cinema on Saturday afternoon I was very glad I changed my plans to see this after work on Friday. The foyer was packed with children and it looked like a costume shop had a Disney special running. My 3D screening the day before had been a much more pleasant affair.
Arendelle is thriving and its people have never been happier, but Queen Elsa is feeling an emptiness that no amount of family and friends can seem to solve. When she starts to hear a song on the wind she knows she must follow its calling.
The song leads them to a place that Elsa and Anna have only ever heard about from their parents, a forest shrouded in impenetrable mist, a place that holds more questions as well as answers.
Firstly, 3D... big thumbs down. I certainly wouldn't be paying extra to see it, it's hardly ever worth it but it was the easiest way to have a screening that wasn't rammed with munchkins in cheap shiny costumes singing Let It Go.
There's always a certain amount of enjoyment to be had from a Disney film, I would say that automatically most are looking at 2.5/5 rating regardless... but coming out of Frozen II I was concerned that this one had dropped the ball.
The characters, our favourite things next to the songs... well mine at least, were hollow representations of what we saw in the first film. The peripheral characters were great so that thankfully helped everything move along well. Sadly Olaf thoroughly annoyed me with his existential crisis but while there were some heartfelt moments they didn't make up for that.
Out of the other main characters it was only Anna that had made any improvement from the original. (Sven of course is comedy gold, that's never in question.) She was stronger and more impressive, she seemed to have a lot more "role model" this time around. It also felt like there was a lot more Kristen Bell in her this time like she was allowed to have more input into Anna, she seems a lot funnier.
It is amazing just how much of an impact Disney songs can have, going in and out of the cinema at the moment you'll generally hear someone singing Let It Go or making some kind of pun, and here's where we come to my second major problem... the songs of Frozen II. There's not a single catchy tune. Much like Mary Poppins Returns I came out with original songs in my head and not the new ones. Possibly the worst thing of all is that they seemingly splice a boyband video for Kristoff right into the middle of the film. The only thing to take away from it is that reindeer are very talented.
Next, don't worry, this is the last one... probably. While the animation is the usual Disney quality there are a couple of moments (one of which is in the trailer) that when I saw them on the big screen looked terrible. Elsa fills the sky with ice crystals and they hand there and visually it's really not very good. For spoilery reasons I understand why they did it but it wasn't in keeping with the rest of the style enough to make it fit in.
The story itself was quite a nice one, it gives background context and opens up the Frozen universe for what I imagine will be a third film somewhere along the line. It covers the usual collection of things, betrayal, love, redemption, plenty of the usual Disney fodder.
Ultimately there's still a lot of good stuff in this and of course it's going to be entertaining. I don't think you could find a Disney film that wasn't, but for me the fact that Olaf and the songs were poor tarnished this one for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/frozen-ii-movie-review.html
Arendelle is thriving and its people have never been happier, but Queen Elsa is feeling an emptiness that no amount of family and friends can seem to solve. When she starts to hear a song on the wind she knows she must follow its calling.
The song leads them to a place that Elsa and Anna have only ever heard about from their parents, a forest shrouded in impenetrable mist, a place that holds more questions as well as answers.
Firstly, 3D... big thumbs down. I certainly wouldn't be paying extra to see it, it's hardly ever worth it but it was the easiest way to have a screening that wasn't rammed with munchkins in cheap shiny costumes singing Let It Go.
There's always a certain amount of enjoyment to be had from a Disney film, I would say that automatically most are looking at 2.5/5 rating regardless... but coming out of Frozen II I was concerned that this one had dropped the ball.
The characters, our favourite things next to the songs... well mine at least, were hollow representations of what we saw in the first film. The peripheral characters were great so that thankfully helped everything move along well. Sadly Olaf thoroughly annoyed me with his existential crisis but while there were some heartfelt moments they didn't make up for that.
Out of the other main characters it was only Anna that had made any improvement from the original. (Sven of course is comedy gold, that's never in question.) She was stronger and more impressive, she seemed to have a lot more "role model" this time around. It also felt like there was a lot more Kristen Bell in her this time like she was allowed to have more input into Anna, she seems a lot funnier.
It is amazing just how much of an impact Disney songs can have, going in and out of the cinema at the moment you'll generally hear someone singing Let It Go or making some kind of pun, and here's where we come to my second major problem... the songs of Frozen II. There's not a single catchy tune. Much like Mary Poppins Returns I came out with original songs in my head and not the new ones. Possibly the worst thing of all is that they seemingly splice a boyband video for Kristoff right into the middle of the film. The only thing to take away from it is that reindeer are very talented.
Next, don't worry, this is the last one... probably. While the animation is the usual Disney quality there are a couple of moments (one of which is in the trailer) that when I saw them on the big screen looked terrible. Elsa fills the sky with ice crystals and they hand there and visually it's really not very good. For spoilery reasons I understand why they did it but it wasn't in keeping with the rest of the style enough to make it fit in.
The story itself was quite a nice one, it gives background context and opens up the Frozen universe for what I imagine will be a third film somewhere along the line. It covers the usual collection of things, betrayal, love, redemption, plenty of the usual Disney fodder.
Ultimately there's still a lot of good stuff in this and of course it's going to be entertaining. I don't think you could find a Disney film that wasn't, but for me the fact that Olaf and the songs were poor tarnished this one for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/frozen-ii-movie-review.html
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated You in Books
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Unique (3 more)
Well thought out
Fast paced
Creepy
Sometimes loses focus (1 more)
Character feels inconsistant
Unique, interesting and stands on it's own
As a book nerd, and fan of crime podcasts and shows, I had to read this book after loving the show version of it.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated No Time To Die by Billie Eilish in Music
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
Congratulations to The Wasteland’s favourite new artist for sweeping 5 awards at yesterday’s Grammy’s. I hate to say I told you so, but I kinda did, a long way out. It just makes sense to me, that if you have a musical ear, this is the best pop music that has been made for 20 years.
Best new artist, best song (Bad Guy), record of the year, best pop vocal album of the year, and the cherry, best album of the year, for the extraordinary When We All Fall Asleep Where Do We Go. Oh, and her brother won one for best producer… so, not a terrible night out!
Not only is she now the youngest person ever to win a Grammy, beating Taylor Swift to that, mostly meaningless, accolade, but more significantly she is the the first artist to sweep the big 4 awards since Christopher Cross in 1981. That is 39 years ago!
From the few acceptance clips I have seen, you can see how genuinely stunned and thrilled she is to win, which is refreshing after a generation of too cool for school egos that were more persona than person, often holding their emotions in check for the sake of image.
I think there is a long, long way to go before talking about Billie Eilish as a great artist – she has to keep it up! But, for sure the music industry wants to make a point that this is the real deal, and have paved the path for an unlimited potential. What these awards do, is create the stamp on her being a superstar. What she and Finneas do with that now is up to them. I have a feeling they are not going to blow it; it just doesn’t feel like this story ends badly.
Billie’s Bond Theme
In the interest of this blog not turning into the Billie Eilish appreciation society, I am adding on my thoughts about the new release of her theme tune for the new 007 movie, No Time To Die. We all have a favourite Bond song from the years past, so how does this one size up?
Working in conjunction with Oscar winning composer, Hans Zimmer can’t be all bad when you just turned 18, and it certainly helps with this sombre, slow building song, utilising full orchestra and a bundle of small motifs that make it seem 100% Bond. Make no mistake, it is a Billie Eilish song, her moody vibe is all over it, but I love how faithful to the brand she has been, avoiding the temptation to do something too weird with the gig.
The first time I heard it was enough for me to be able to say “cast-iron hit!” And I haven’t changed my mind 20 listens later. It is just mind-blowing how the ball of success keeps rolling for her and Finneas. Having the honour of singing the in memoriam song at the Academy awards, with an emotional rendition of the Beatles’ Yesterday would be enough attention for one week for any ordinary superstar, but no, here’s the best Bond theme for 20 years for you too! Astonishing.
It even has folk that were a bit cautious at first saying, actually that is a great tune. Just yesterday I was listening to a radio interview where Billie talked about how she gets fan mail from all demographics, including 80 year old grandfathers! I find that not only reassuring, but apt. This is an artist of universal appeal wrapped up in the media hype of a teenage pop-idol, but doing a great job of denying that narrow image and idea.
What can I say? Just carry on, Billie. It’s going quite well!
Best new artist, best song (Bad Guy), record of the year, best pop vocal album of the year, and the cherry, best album of the year, for the extraordinary When We All Fall Asleep Where Do We Go. Oh, and her brother won one for best producer… so, not a terrible night out!
Not only is she now the youngest person ever to win a Grammy, beating Taylor Swift to that, mostly meaningless, accolade, but more significantly she is the the first artist to sweep the big 4 awards since Christopher Cross in 1981. That is 39 years ago!
From the few acceptance clips I have seen, you can see how genuinely stunned and thrilled she is to win, which is refreshing after a generation of too cool for school egos that were more persona than person, often holding their emotions in check for the sake of image.
I think there is a long, long way to go before talking about Billie Eilish as a great artist – she has to keep it up! But, for sure the music industry wants to make a point that this is the real deal, and have paved the path for an unlimited potential. What these awards do, is create the stamp on her being a superstar. What she and Finneas do with that now is up to them. I have a feeling they are not going to blow it; it just doesn’t feel like this story ends badly.
Billie’s Bond Theme
In the interest of this blog not turning into the Billie Eilish appreciation society, I am adding on my thoughts about the new release of her theme tune for the new 007 movie, No Time To Die. We all have a favourite Bond song from the years past, so how does this one size up?
Working in conjunction with Oscar winning composer, Hans Zimmer can’t be all bad when you just turned 18, and it certainly helps with this sombre, slow building song, utilising full orchestra and a bundle of small motifs that make it seem 100% Bond. Make no mistake, it is a Billie Eilish song, her moody vibe is all over it, but I love how faithful to the brand she has been, avoiding the temptation to do something too weird with the gig.
The first time I heard it was enough for me to be able to say “cast-iron hit!” And I haven’t changed my mind 20 listens later. It is just mind-blowing how the ball of success keeps rolling for her and Finneas. Having the honour of singing the in memoriam song at the Academy awards, with an emotional rendition of the Beatles’ Yesterday would be enough attention for one week for any ordinary superstar, but no, here’s the best Bond theme for 20 years for you too! Astonishing.
It even has folk that were a bit cautious at first saying, actually that is a great tune. Just yesterday I was listening to a radio interview where Billie talked about how she gets fan mail from all demographics, including 80 year old grandfathers! I find that not only reassuring, but apt. This is an artist of universal appeal wrapped up in the media hype of a teenage pop-idol, but doing a great job of denying that narrow image and idea.
What can I say? Just carry on, Billie. It’s going quite well!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Mar 21, 2020
It's nice to get a different side of the comic book genre for once, I'm still suffering from Marvel/Avengers fatigue so this was a welcome diversion.
After a successful operation, soldier Ray Garrison has come home to take his beautiful wife of a well deserved break. What he doesn't realise is that he's being tracked by a team who are looking for information, and they'll do anything it takes to get it.
Waking up in a high tech lab with no memory Ray discovers that his body has been donated to a company after his death. RSC are pioneers in enhancements to the human body, taking people who might otherwise be given up on and giving them a new lease of life.
When you've had one of those days and you need some gratuitous violence you can't really go wrong with a Vin Diesel films... can you?
I can't say I ever go into films like this expecting a "masterpiece" of cinema, I was just hoping for some solid entertainment and it certainly gives that.
Enhanced humans always offer that level of escapism that allows for a few faux pas to come across as less obvious, but the trailer made me raise an eyebrow. The effects didn't look great in the few snippets we got, luckily, on seeing the final product thought I was pleasantly surprised. The close up action that wouldn't require major stunts were excellent and believable, I didn't feel like there were any holes to pick... until the elevator scene. You'll clearly see the graphic work and it's a real shame it is so bad in comparison to the rest, there's also a terrible chase scene that has no natural movement in it either.
It's not often Vin strays from a certain type of character so we get exactly what you'd expect from his portrayal of Ray Garrison, a driven "bad guy" with a reason to be mad at a lot of stuff. It's not groundbreaking but it's always fun to see.
Eiza Gonzalez as KT gets a good range to work with, she gives us an excellent character with a reasonable amount of depth compared to her counterparts... who I had to call Legs and Eyes in my notes because at no point did I notice if they had names or not.
Our bad guy was obviously Guy Pearce seems about right for him. It wasn't really out of his comfort zone either though and despite him being great as Dr Emil Harting it wasn't really pushing any boundaries.
Visually this film is pretty good, the fight sequence we get glimpses of during the trailer uses colour well and has some amusing little touches in it. A bit of humour and some shots that I'd associate with horror/thriller movies build that excitement and tension well. There's also a well edited montage that's used to great effect to show the audience an event succinctly without it becoming boring, which is always greatly appreciated in films.
There are a few comments I have but they definitely constitute spoilers so I'll keep them to myself, but there's nothing that majorly added or detracted from the film for me beyond what I've mentioned already.
As I said at the beginning, it's nice to have a different comic book entity on our screens and I think the story is a good one, we're thankfully given an interesting set of characters to focus on and that helps the story stay a little lighter. You know how I like an origin tale though and this seems a bit short on that bit of discovery. I've got the graphic novel to read though so I'm interested to see where it deviates. Despite its minor (and slightly major action CGI) issues I really enjoyed Bloodshot, Ray's anger issues really helped get out some frustration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloodshot-movie-review.html
After a successful operation, soldier Ray Garrison has come home to take his beautiful wife of a well deserved break. What he doesn't realise is that he's being tracked by a team who are looking for information, and they'll do anything it takes to get it.
Waking up in a high tech lab with no memory Ray discovers that his body has been donated to a company after his death. RSC are pioneers in enhancements to the human body, taking people who might otherwise be given up on and giving them a new lease of life.
When you've had one of those days and you need some gratuitous violence you can't really go wrong with a Vin Diesel films... can you?
I can't say I ever go into films like this expecting a "masterpiece" of cinema, I was just hoping for some solid entertainment and it certainly gives that.
Enhanced humans always offer that level of escapism that allows for a few faux pas to come across as less obvious, but the trailer made me raise an eyebrow. The effects didn't look great in the few snippets we got, luckily, on seeing the final product thought I was pleasantly surprised. The close up action that wouldn't require major stunts were excellent and believable, I didn't feel like there were any holes to pick... until the elevator scene. You'll clearly see the graphic work and it's a real shame it is so bad in comparison to the rest, there's also a terrible chase scene that has no natural movement in it either.
It's not often Vin strays from a certain type of character so we get exactly what you'd expect from his portrayal of Ray Garrison, a driven "bad guy" with a reason to be mad at a lot of stuff. It's not groundbreaking but it's always fun to see.
Eiza Gonzalez as KT gets a good range to work with, she gives us an excellent character with a reasonable amount of depth compared to her counterparts... who I had to call Legs and Eyes in my notes because at no point did I notice if they had names or not.
Our bad guy was obviously Guy Pearce seems about right for him. It wasn't really out of his comfort zone either though and despite him being great as Dr Emil Harting it wasn't really pushing any boundaries.
Visually this film is pretty good, the fight sequence we get glimpses of during the trailer uses colour well and has some amusing little touches in it. A bit of humour and some shots that I'd associate with horror/thriller movies build that excitement and tension well. There's also a well edited montage that's used to great effect to show the audience an event succinctly without it becoming boring, which is always greatly appreciated in films.
There are a few comments I have but they definitely constitute spoilers so I'll keep them to myself, but there's nothing that majorly added or detracted from the film for me beyond what I've mentioned already.
As I said at the beginning, it's nice to have a different comic book entity on our screens and I think the story is a good one, we're thankfully given an interesting set of characters to focus on and that helps the story stay a little lighter. You know how I like an origin tale though and this seems a bit short on that bit of discovery. I've got the graphic novel to read though so I'm interested to see where it deviates. Despite its minor (and slightly major action CGI) issues I really enjoyed Bloodshot, Ray's anger issues really helped get out some frustration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloodshot-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Seven Psychopaths (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Unfamiliar with writer and director Martin McDonagh’s previous gangster film In Burges, I was not exactly sure what I was getting into when watching Seven Psychopaths. I had seen a few trailers and was looking forward to what looked like a quirky new movie that I hoped delivered at least a few solid one-liners but was not expecting much more. Well, I am delighted to say that McDonagh delivers a fantastic self-referential crime caper that is one part Pulp Fiction and one part a meta episode of NBC’s TV show Community.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
Ice Princess Castle Decoration: My Play.home Games
Lifestyle and Games
App
*** Design and decorate a sparkling princess castle in snowy surroundings! *** Have you ever wanted...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
The trailer for Dora looked like fun but I went in cautious, luckily I came out having really enjoyed myself. Dora is the step before the new Jumanji films, it's packed with fun daft stuff and it's difficult to hold anything against it.
Dora and her parents live in the jungle where they can explore and learn about everything around them. When her best friend Diego leaves for the city she's left with only Boots, a cheeky monkey, to go on a daily adventure with.
Years later after a breakthrough with their research Dora's parents send her to stay with Diego and his family in the city as they go off looking for their lost Inca civilisation. High school is a bit like a jungle, but not like the one Dora is used to, she muddles through the best she can trying to stay positive.
When the school goes on a field trip to the museum Dora and her friends get cornered by a strange group of people and trapped in a packing crate headed back to the jungle. Dora isn't the only one wanting to know where her parents are, this group of mercenaries are after them too, and the treasure.
Something great about Dora And The Lost City Of Gold is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The TV series was after my time but it's one of those things you still know about. I was pre-worried about the terrible animation on Boots, it didn't exactly look ground-breaking in the trailer, but once the cute little thing got going I didn't really care. Obviously there are lots of things that happen in the cartoon that don't really lend themselves to the big screen. Possibly the most amusing one is Dora breaking the fourth wall to ask if we can say "delicioso", the reaction from everyone in the scene is hilarious and I'm impressed they decided to do it that way.
Isabela Moner made an excellent impression earlier this year in Instant Family and seeing her name on this was brilliant. The age difference to the show makes sense and I love the way they handled it. There's infectious enthusiasm that it was difficult not to succumb to. Having to act with things that aren't there is incredibly difficult to do realistically but you wouldn't know it to watch her in this.
Dora's parents are played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria, it seems like an odd pairing but they were really fun together. You know I love Michael Peña, and he's so goofy and fun in this that it made me very happy. His extended rave music piece was thankfully better than the short clip in the trailer. Eva Longoria was much more down to earth and sensible and the dynamic between them worked really well.
The film managed to incorporate the cartoon in quite a fun way. I'm not sure how they expect parents to explain what happened but that's not my problem so I'm purely entertained by it all. I briefly mentioned the animation of Boots, it's not good but the character is amusing, Swiper the fox has a similar animation issue. He's more annoying to watch and see other characters interact with him, but a fox that talks and walks on his hind legs isn't going to be great in this style of film whatever way you try.
Dora And The Lost City Of Gold really feels like it brings together all the values that the show tries to put across, friendship, learning and good behaviour. It has captured it all in a bright and engaging format while keeping the content amusing and suitable for everyone. I'm very pleased I got to see this it's one of the more amusing releases this year.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/dora-and-lost-city-of-gold-movie-review.html
Dora and her parents live in the jungle where they can explore and learn about everything around them. When her best friend Diego leaves for the city she's left with only Boots, a cheeky monkey, to go on a daily adventure with.
Years later after a breakthrough with their research Dora's parents send her to stay with Diego and his family in the city as they go off looking for their lost Inca civilisation. High school is a bit like a jungle, but not like the one Dora is used to, she muddles through the best she can trying to stay positive.
When the school goes on a field trip to the museum Dora and her friends get cornered by a strange group of people and trapped in a packing crate headed back to the jungle. Dora isn't the only one wanting to know where her parents are, this group of mercenaries are after them too, and the treasure.
Something great about Dora And The Lost City Of Gold is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The TV series was after my time but it's one of those things you still know about. I was pre-worried about the terrible animation on Boots, it didn't exactly look ground-breaking in the trailer, but once the cute little thing got going I didn't really care. Obviously there are lots of things that happen in the cartoon that don't really lend themselves to the big screen. Possibly the most amusing one is Dora breaking the fourth wall to ask if we can say "delicioso", the reaction from everyone in the scene is hilarious and I'm impressed they decided to do it that way.
Isabela Moner made an excellent impression earlier this year in Instant Family and seeing her name on this was brilliant. The age difference to the show makes sense and I love the way they handled it. There's infectious enthusiasm that it was difficult not to succumb to. Having to act with things that aren't there is incredibly difficult to do realistically but you wouldn't know it to watch her in this.
Dora's parents are played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria, it seems like an odd pairing but they were really fun together. You know I love Michael Peña, and he's so goofy and fun in this that it made me very happy. His extended rave music piece was thankfully better than the short clip in the trailer. Eva Longoria was much more down to earth and sensible and the dynamic between them worked really well.
The film managed to incorporate the cartoon in quite a fun way. I'm not sure how they expect parents to explain what happened but that's not my problem so I'm purely entertained by it all. I briefly mentioned the animation of Boots, it's not good but the character is amusing, Swiper the fox has a similar animation issue. He's more annoying to watch and see other characters interact with him, but a fox that talks and walks on his hind legs isn't going to be great in this style of film whatever way you try.
Dora And The Lost City Of Gold really feels like it brings together all the values that the show tries to put across, friendship, learning and good behaviour. It has captured it all in a bright and engaging format while keeping the content amusing and suitable for everyone. I'm very pleased I got to see this it's one of the more amusing releases this year.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/dora-and-lost-city-of-gold-movie-review.html