Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated New Girl in Books
May 3, 2018
Like a reality show you can't turn away from
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is one of the few times where I enjoyed the book however the characters were so unlikable I was amazed that I stuck through and finished the novel. It was well written enough that I was super curious as to what happened to Becca and whether she was really around or if she had a horrible outcome. The mystery element was well done to keep you guessing. The point of views changes between Becca and Callie’s. There’s a good easy flow between the two perspectives so it makes the reading easy to follow and quick.
That being said, the characters were just awful in a sense not that they were unreadable (almost) but they were just horrible awful people. Even our main character wasn’t that likable. However I digress. Let’s break them down:
Becca; Oh darling. You horrible awful attention seeking harpy. Not only do you have issues of your own but because you aren’t happy you feel the need to destroy others and to make sure you drag them down into the mud and follow you through your misery. I had no sympathies. Even when it was revealed what happened. Except for ...well you know.
Max: Another horrible creature and he’s pretty much meant for Becca anyway as they’re both rather terrible people. The “I like you but I don’t want to be together” spiel is ugh. On top of that after you say that you go and do the pursuing. You’re the emotional manipulative type just like Becca and it’s hard to figure out which one is worse. You emotionally play with the main character and give her the yo-yo treatment then get mad when she’s talking with your best friend..oh wait sorry let’s re-write that: “Best Friend”. Dude, you’re like a horrible Tinder date gone wrong.
Dana: You’re a psychotic twit and holy mother mary do you have issues. I get what happened and you stood there and was an observer but you lashing out and being Queen Horrible to Callie (main character) was inexcusable. This behavior can’t even be blamed on grief, you’re just pure malice. Your obsession with Becca is creepy it makes you look like the type of fangirl nobody ever wants.
Madison and Julia: You have no spines and you follow Becca like she’s a Goddess. Stop being sheep and your condescension towards Callie was uncalled for. You each deserve a swift kick for treating her like that.
Johnny: You broke the Bro-Code. You should be banned for life.
Callie: Where do I start with you? You started off as a great main character and a lot of sympathies to you because you started off on the wrong foot and in a precarious situation. However then you did this yo-yo game with Max saying “Yeah I like you but I never said I was going to be with you” sure, that was a savage burn on your part but you keep *whining* about how you like Max so much and he’s not returning the favor because of Becca but he keeps coming back to you like you’re the side piece and you don’t seem to mind that treatment. You try to stick up for yourself with Dana (which was admirable) but then you shrink back into your turtle shell and you just *walk* into these situations even though YOU KNOW it’s going to turn out with potentially bad consequences. You’re like the friend that complains about how horrible your significant other is treating you but you’re still with that person but you don’t listen to advice. You have got to be one of the most frustrating characters I have ever read so far.
Well now! That sums up my opinions of the characters. I say go for reading this one. It’s almost like you’re watching reality TV and it’s such a guilty pleasure but you can’t help but not look away. Maybe because the characters were just so hateful you had to keep on reading. You just wanted to know what was going to happen next.
That being said, the characters were just awful in a sense not that they were unreadable (almost) but they were just horrible awful people. Even our main character wasn’t that likable. However I digress. Let’s break them down:
Becca; Oh darling. You horrible awful attention seeking harpy. Not only do you have issues of your own but because you aren’t happy you feel the need to destroy others and to make sure you drag them down into the mud and follow you through your misery. I had no sympathies. Even when it was revealed what happened. Except for ...well you know.
Max: Another horrible creature and he’s pretty much meant for Becca anyway as they’re both rather terrible people. The “I like you but I don’t want to be together” spiel is ugh. On top of that after you say that you go and do the pursuing. You’re the emotional manipulative type just like Becca and it’s hard to figure out which one is worse. You emotionally play with the main character and give her the yo-yo treatment then get mad when she’s talking with your best friend..oh wait sorry let’s re-write that: “Best Friend”. Dude, you’re like a horrible Tinder date gone wrong.
Dana: You’re a psychotic twit and holy mother mary do you have issues. I get what happened and you stood there and was an observer but you lashing out and being Queen Horrible to Callie (main character) was inexcusable. This behavior can’t even be blamed on grief, you’re just pure malice. Your obsession with Becca is creepy it makes you look like the type of fangirl nobody ever wants.
Madison and Julia: You have no spines and you follow Becca like she’s a Goddess. Stop being sheep and your condescension towards Callie was uncalled for. You each deserve a swift kick for treating her like that.
Johnny: You broke the Bro-Code. You should be banned for life.
Callie: Where do I start with you? You started off as a great main character and a lot of sympathies to you because you started off on the wrong foot and in a precarious situation. However then you did this yo-yo game with Max saying “Yeah I like you but I never said I was going to be with you” sure, that was a savage burn on your part but you keep *whining* about how you like Max so much and he’s not returning the favor because of Becca but he keeps coming back to you like you’re the side piece and you don’t seem to mind that treatment. You try to stick up for yourself with Dana (which was admirable) but then you shrink back into your turtle shell and you just *walk* into these situations even though YOU KNOW it’s going to turn out with potentially bad consequences. You’re like the friend that complains about how horrible your significant other is treating you but you’re still with that person but you don’t listen to advice. You have got to be one of the most frustrating characters I have ever read so far.
Well now! That sums up my opinions of the characters. I say go for reading this one. It’s almost like you’re watching reality TV and it’s such a guilty pleasure but you can’t help but not look away. Maybe because the characters were just so hateful you had to keep on reading. You just wanted to know what was going to happen next.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated How to Make a Wish in Books
Apr 8, 2019
Sweet, funny, and heartbreaking at times
Grace has had to grow up too quickly, thanks to her unpredictable mom, Maggie. So when Grace returns from piano camp and realizes that the flighty, alcoholic Maggie has forced her to move in with yet another of her boyfriends, it feels like the last straw. Even worse, his son happens to be Grace's ex--the same ex who posted their sexts all over Tumblr after their breakup--and Maggie has no clue. It feels like the last straw. But then Grace meets Eva, who has moved in with Grace's best friend's family after her own tragedy. Eva and Grace form a fast friendship, and Grace feels her world shift slightly when Eva reveals to her that she's a lesbian. But there's still Maggie to deal with, and her erratic behavior. Grace feels tied to her mother above all, but those ties are preventing her from happiness. Can Grace find the strength to choose herself for once?
Ashley Herring Blake's HOW TO MAKE A WISH was one of the best books I read in 2018. It was gorgeous and heartbreaking and amazing. This book certainly had some echoes of that one; Blake is a wonderful writer, and I will be continuing my quest to track down all of her books.
So Grace is a tough character. I felt for her immensely: she's living the life of adult, basically, trying to care for and worry about her mother, who is a real piece of work. By doing so, she's essentially paralyzed and unable to live her own life. Grace is a talented pianist who dreams of moving to New York to study at a conservatory there, but she lives in fear of living her mom behind. Her mom manipulates this fear, leaning on her daughter at every turn. (She was really a terrible woman; I couldn't make myself feel sorry for her, even though she'd lost her husband when Grace was small.) Still, there were times when I wanted to shake Grace: you have a group of people who do love you and care about you! Go to them, use their support, stop defending your mom, you're not a child anymore! I took this as a sign of Blake's excellent writing abilities, as I was totally immersed in the book to the point that I was frustrated with and in love with her characters.
"I can't leave her. She's my mom; I'm her kid. We belong together."
I really, really loved the Grace/Eva relationship in this book. I mean, what is there not to love? For one thing, Eva is a biracial lesbian. Can we say hurray representation?! I adored this sweet, fragile, yet incredibly tough girl. She was so funny and real to me. And then we have Grace, who was such a realistic bisexual. It's just so heartening to see well-done bisexual relationships portrayed in YA books. Oh my goodness, I wish I had this to read when I was struggling with my bisexuality as a teen. And it makes me so happy to think about teens today reading this and seeing this representation as completely normal.
"But... well, I like who I like. I like the person."
This book definitely sucks you into the characters' lives. It's quite well-written, and I really liked the supporting characters, especially Grace's best friend, Luca and his mom. He's a good friend. These poor kids are dealing with a lot, and your heart goes out to them, watching them struggle. At the same time, Grace and Eva's relationship is so lovely.
"I know a lot of people on this godforsaken waste of space and a lot of people know me. But no one really knows me... I've had a handful of friends here and there, but with the ebb and flow of my existence, it was easier to keep my world as small as possible. Less explaining. Less lying to cover up why I'd moved again. Less worrying about what totally messed-up situation I'd encounter when I brought a friend home."
Overall, I really enjoyed this book. It features intricate characters and a great relationship in Eva and Grace. It's sweet, funny, and heartbreaking at times.
Ashley Herring Blake's HOW TO MAKE A WISH was one of the best books I read in 2018. It was gorgeous and heartbreaking and amazing. This book certainly had some echoes of that one; Blake is a wonderful writer, and I will be continuing my quest to track down all of her books.
So Grace is a tough character. I felt for her immensely: she's living the life of adult, basically, trying to care for and worry about her mother, who is a real piece of work. By doing so, she's essentially paralyzed and unable to live her own life. Grace is a talented pianist who dreams of moving to New York to study at a conservatory there, but she lives in fear of living her mom behind. Her mom manipulates this fear, leaning on her daughter at every turn. (She was really a terrible woman; I couldn't make myself feel sorry for her, even though she'd lost her husband when Grace was small.) Still, there were times when I wanted to shake Grace: you have a group of people who do love you and care about you! Go to them, use their support, stop defending your mom, you're not a child anymore! I took this as a sign of Blake's excellent writing abilities, as I was totally immersed in the book to the point that I was frustrated with and in love with her characters.
"I can't leave her. She's my mom; I'm her kid. We belong together."
I really, really loved the Grace/Eva relationship in this book. I mean, what is there not to love? For one thing, Eva is a biracial lesbian. Can we say hurray representation?! I adored this sweet, fragile, yet incredibly tough girl. She was so funny and real to me. And then we have Grace, who was such a realistic bisexual. It's just so heartening to see well-done bisexual relationships portrayed in YA books. Oh my goodness, I wish I had this to read when I was struggling with my bisexuality as a teen. And it makes me so happy to think about teens today reading this and seeing this representation as completely normal.
"But... well, I like who I like. I like the person."
This book definitely sucks you into the characters' lives. It's quite well-written, and I really liked the supporting characters, especially Grace's best friend, Luca and his mom. He's a good friend. These poor kids are dealing with a lot, and your heart goes out to them, watching them struggle. At the same time, Grace and Eva's relationship is so lovely.
"I know a lot of people on this godforsaken waste of space and a lot of people know me. But no one really knows me... I've had a handful of friends here and there, but with the ebb and flow of my existence, it was easier to keep my world as small as possible. Less explaining. Less lying to cover up why I'd moved again. Less worrying about what totally messed-up situation I'd encounter when I brought a friend home."
Overall, I really enjoyed this book. It features intricate characters and a great relationship in Eva and Grace. It's sweet, funny, and heartbreaking at times.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Finally, a Twilight film that doesn’t have men in the audience going green with envy as they stare at Taylor Lautner’s washboard abs and finally, a Twilight film that doesn’t actually stink.
Of course, those of you familiar with my reviews know that I’m not fond of the Twilight Saga in the slightest, but here I’m prepared to eat my words as newcomer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directs a surprisingly enjoyable outing. Unfortunately, it all comes a bit late as this is the penultimate film in Stephanie Meyer’s book series.
Sadly, the Twilight films have never had the critical success of their Harry Potter cousins, probably due to their wooden acting, dire scripting and disappointing special effects, but here, Breaking Dawn Part 1 manages to be at least as good as the first two films of its wizarding counterpart.
The similarities between the two series’ don’t stop there. The decision to split the final book in the Twilight series was probably done because of the success Harry Potter had by splitting the final book into two films.
Here, Bill Condon manages to inject some life into the franchise with good acting, good special effects and finally, a good storyline. Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) have finally decided to tie the knot. Naturally, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is less than pleased with this announcement and decides to run away in a fit of rage. Will he be back for the wedding? GASP!
Alas, he makes it and just before Edward whisks Bella on their honeymoon, some pleasantries are exchanged between the bride and the wolf. So, the honeymoon comes and Bella realises she’s pregnant; oh dear. The film then follows her journey to becoming a mother and the growing beast inside her. Thankfully, the point where the film is split doesn’t jar like it did in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and seems to follow a natural ending.
The special effects have also upped their game for the latest instalment as the (still blatantly obvious) CGI werewolves look much more realistic. Also, the acting has improved leaps and bounds with Kristen Stewart being a real highlight. The realisation that motherhood could kill her is fantastically portrayed by Stewart, though the special effects making her look frail probably helped here.
Taylor Lautner is the best out of the male leads and does the role some justice, whilst Robert Pattinson is mediocre as Edward.
There’s still a problem with the films pacing however. It seems that events that would take 10 minutes worth of screen time in other films have to take 30 in the Twilight saga; it’s a major annoyance as it interrupts the flow of the film and the constant close ups of the characters’ faces grate after a while.
Also, Condon has clearly not directed many films that require action scenes. A major fight with the werewolves and the Cullen’s should have been a real highlight, but it’s a sloppily directed sequence with bodies mashing together. You’re unsure as to who is who, a problem which blights the Transformers film series.
Thankfully there are numerous highlights, the shots of Rio are breath-taking and Bella giving birth is truly horrific, you can’t take your eyes of the screen for a second. Also worth a mention is a part where the werewolves are running through the forest and end up in a logging plant. It’s a fabulous sequence that really makes you grip your seat.
The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a good film. It finally makes use of the promising source material it has been blessed with and it’s pleasing to see that a good sense of direction is all it takes to turn around the fortunes of a film series. It’s far from perfect, with sloppy action scenes and terrible pacing, but finally, I left the cinema with a sense of happiness – I’m actually looking forward to part two. (I can’t believe I just said that.)
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/27/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-2011/
Of course, those of you familiar with my reviews know that I’m not fond of the Twilight Saga in the slightest, but here I’m prepared to eat my words as newcomer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directs a surprisingly enjoyable outing. Unfortunately, it all comes a bit late as this is the penultimate film in Stephanie Meyer’s book series.
Sadly, the Twilight films have never had the critical success of their Harry Potter cousins, probably due to their wooden acting, dire scripting and disappointing special effects, but here, Breaking Dawn Part 1 manages to be at least as good as the first two films of its wizarding counterpart.
The similarities between the two series’ don’t stop there. The decision to split the final book in the Twilight series was probably done because of the success Harry Potter had by splitting the final book into two films.
Here, Bill Condon manages to inject some life into the franchise with good acting, good special effects and finally, a good storyline. Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) have finally decided to tie the knot. Naturally, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is less than pleased with this announcement and decides to run away in a fit of rage. Will he be back for the wedding? GASP!
Alas, he makes it and just before Edward whisks Bella on their honeymoon, some pleasantries are exchanged between the bride and the wolf. So, the honeymoon comes and Bella realises she’s pregnant; oh dear. The film then follows her journey to becoming a mother and the growing beast inside her. Thankfully, the point where the film is split doesn’t jar like it did in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and seems to follow a natural ending.
The special effects have also upped their game for the latest instalment as the (still blatantly obvious) CGI werewolves look much more realistic. Also, the acting has improved leaps and bounds with Kristen Stewart being a real highlight. The realisation that motherhood could kill her is fantastically portrayed by Stewart, though the special effects making her look frail probably helped here.
Taylor Lautner is the best out of the male leads and does the role some justice, whilst Robert Pattinson is mediocre as Edward.
There’s still a problem with the films pacing however. It seems that events that would take 10 minutes worth of screen time in other films have to take 30 in the Twilight saga; it’s a major annoyance as it interrupts the flow of the film and the constant close ups of the characters’ faces grate after a while.
Also, Condon has clearly not directed many films that require action scenes. A major fight with the werewolves and the Cullen’s should have been a real highlight, but it’s a sloppily directed sequence with bodies mashing together. You’re unsure as to who is who, a problem which blights the Transformers film series.
Thankfully there are numerous highlights, the shots of Rio are breath-taking and Bella giving birth is truly horrific, you can’t take your eyes of the screen for a second. Also worth a mention is a part where the werewolves are running through the forest and end up in a logging plant. It’s a fabulous sequence that really makes you grip your seat.
The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a good film. It finally makes use of the promising source material it has been blessed with and it’s pleasing to see that a good sense of direction is all it takes to turn around the fortunes of a film series. It’s far from perfect, with sloppy action scenes and terrible pacing, but finally, I left the cinema with a sense of happiness – I’m actually looking forward to part two. (I can’t believe I just said that.)
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/27/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-2011/
Amanda (96 KP) rated Paperweight in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Death is not an exact science, which is irritating for those of us who appreciate precision.
While I’ve had my own experiences with purging after eating, or just trying to avoid food at all, not everybody is the same. It’s hard to read something about this, much less watch someone go through what is, to me, torture. I’m not going to lie, I kept getting this book and another book kind of mixed up because the main characters in both books are named Stevie. This wasn’t a terrible book, but I’m left with mixed feelings in the end.
Stephanie ‘Stevie’ is signed in (kind of forced) to a rehab facility by her father. Since she is seventeen, she cannot sign herself out. Stevie, while according to the doctors, is not heavily underweight, she is diagnosed with bulimia nervosa (and this actually pisses her off, and not because it’s not true). She is assigned to Anna, one of the therapists on staff (whom she refers to as Shrink most of the book) and a treatment team of different specialists.
This place is something else. The author stated in her Afterward that this is just pure work of fiction, not from personal experience. Do places like this exist? Does a place that thinks that by helping girls get over eating disorders is to have them do some sort of group where they must pick a food and eat it?
My body is both weapon, wound, predator and prey. I will self-destruct without any help.
While I can see how one group therapy can be helpful but having these girls (yes all girls) where they learn, well some learn, to cook something. Cooking is an art, even if you don’t really know how to, or not good at it, so cooking is good therapy.
I was highly mixed with this book. I saw that some other reviewers either really enjoyed it or really did not.
Stevie is typical. She’s frustrated and angry that she has to be there, and it messes up her ‘plans’ for her brother’s death anniversary. You find out that she was actually planning on killing herself (by starving herself apparently) on the day of his death so she could be with him. Her mother abandoned them and come to find she is PAYING for the rehab place, but she NEVER makes a present appearance, just flash back.
I am not overly fond of Stevie’s therapist, Anna (Shrink to Stevie). To me, she is almost molded like how people make fun of therapists. ‘How are you feeling?’ ‘How does that make you feel?’ ‘How do you feel about that?’ I work with a therapist, so I understand the point is not to be bottled up, but I feel like Anna is more stereotypical, than helpful. She does, eventually, get Stevie to open up about her brother’s death and why she chose not to eat, but even I got frustrated during her sessions.
Stevie has a few roommates in her cottage. I liked Ashley the most, but her life really messed her up and it takes a while for Stevie to really get out of her head and have a friend in Ashley.
I think there is some things you shouldn’t accept. And living sick is one of those things.
I need that on a shirt as well.
The ending left me kind of unsatisfied. Stevie did have some personal growth by talking more about her brother’s death and the toxic relationship she had with a girl named Eden, but the book ended rather oddly. I won’t say how it ended, but to me, I didn’t go into a book hangover, nor did I feel the need to throw my ereader (or in this case my laptop) across the room frustration (no way, this thing was expensive!!).
I’m not sure on the accuracy of this kind of rehab, but to me, it felt a little off. I won’t say this is not a good book to read, but it is highly triggering. There are talks of eating disorders and self harm, so proceed with caution if it peaked your curiosity enough.
Stephanie ‘Stevie’ is signed in (kind of forced) to a rehab facility by her father. Since she is seventeen, she cannot sign herself out. Stevie, while according to the doctors, is not heavily underweight, she is diagnosed with bulimia nervosa (and this actually pisses her off, and not because it’s not true). She is assigned to Anna, one of the therapists on staff (whom she refers to as Shrink most of the book) and a treatment team of different specialists.
This place is something else. The author stated in her Afterward that this is just pure work of fiction, not from personal experience. Do places like this exist? Does a place that thinks that by helping girls get over eating disorders is to have them do some sort of group where they must pick a food and eat it?
My body is both weapon, wound, predator and prey. I will self-destruct without any help.
While I can see how one group therapy can be helpful but having these girls (yes all girls) where they learn, well some learn, to cook something. Cooking is an art, even if you don’t really know how to, or not good at it, so cooking is good therapy.
I was highly mixed with this book. I saw that some other reviewers either really enjoyed it or really did not.
Stevie is typical. She’s frustrated and angry that she has to be there, and it messes up her ‘plans’ for her brother’s death anniversary. You find out that she was actually planning on killing herself (by starving herself apparently) on the day of his death so she could be with him. Her mother abandoned them and come to find she is PAYING for the rehab place, but she NEVER makes a present appearance, just flash back.
I am not overly fond of Stevie’s therapist, Anna (Shrink to Stevie). To me, she is almost molded like how people make fun of therapists. ‘How are you feeling?’ ‘How does that make you feel?’ ‘How do you feel about that?’ I work with a therapist, so I understand the point is not to be bottled up, but I feel like Anna is more stereotypical, than helpful. She does, eventually, get Stevie to open up about her brother’s death and why she chose not to eat, but even I got frustrated during her sessions.
Stevie has a few roommates in her cottage. I liked Ashley the most, but her life really messed her up and it takes a while for Stevie to really get out of her head and have a friend in Ashley.
I think there is some things you shouldn’t accept. And living sick is one of those things.
I need that on a shirt as well.
The ending left me kind of unsatisfied. Stevie did have some personal growth by talking more about her brother’s death and the toxic relationship she had with a girl named Eden, but the book ended rather oddly. I won’t say how it ended, but to me, I didn’t go into a book hangover, nor did I feel the need to throw my ereader (or in this case my laptop) across the room frustration (no way, this thing was expensive!!).
I’m not sure on the accuracy of this kind of rehab, but to me, it felt a little off. I won’t say this is not a good book to read, but it is highly triggering. There are talks of eating disorders and self harm, so proceed with caution if it peaked your curiosity enough.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I came across this book on Goodreads, there was something about the blurb that made me want to read it, so when I got asked if I'd like to review it, I said yes instantly. While the first half of the book was a bit hit and miss, the second half really became interesting!
The title is a bit of a mouthful although interesting. I had a hard time remembering what the book was called due to the long name. Eventually, I memorized it, but I would still double check just to make sure I was right.
The cover might be a bit plain, but I think it suits this book perfectly! After the terrible incident that happens to Wendy, she kind of goes inside herself. I think this cover definitely captures that.
What bothered me a bit with the world building was I just felt like the school Wendy attended was racism central. I know that racism is a huge problem is some places, but it just felt a bit over the top in the beginning of the book. Luckily, about a third of the book in, the over the top racism thing stops, and the world building becomes more believable.
The pacing is fairly slow to begin with. However, about a little before halfway in, the pacing speeds up, and it quickly held my attention for the rest of the book. In fact, I couldn't put the book done after that! So if you start off a bit bored with the book, please do continue reading or you'll out miss out on a really good story.
The plot is interesting enough. It deals with racism, being an outcast, sexual abuse, and an emotionally distant mother as well as some other issues. I thought it was an original idea to use Michael Jackson as a teen girl's saint. I love the references to some artists of old.
The characters were written really well. Wendy, aside from her obsession with the king of pop, is just your average teenage girl. Her goal is to see Michael Jackson in concert in London. Wendy is definitely easy to relate to. Shaye comes across as being very cool and charismatic. He's instantly likable. I felt bad that I had ever liked him though after what he did to Wendy. My favorite character was Tanay though. I loved her attitude as well as her sass. She's super funny, yet she's a friend who's got your back. I think teenage girls will have an easy time relating to Wendy and/or Tanay.
The dialogue, for the most part, runs smoothly. However, at the beginning of the book, it does feel a little bit forced especially when it focuses on racism a little too heavily, at least I thought so. Some may get offended with the racism being used, but I didn't feel like the book itself was racist. I just felt that there was too much focus on how segregated Wendy's school is and how much racism (against all colors) there is in that school. Other than that, everything is smooth sailing. The character interactions feel normal, and the dialogue goes well with what a teen book should read like. There is some cussing in this book as well as some sexual situations, so I wouldn't recommend this book to younger teens.
Overall, How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought is a very intriguing book. The issues it deals with are issues that have plagued teens as well as adults for awhile. Hawks does a fantastic job of writing about this issues.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something a little more realistic than normal fiction with characters of whom are easy to relate to.
I'd give How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought by Lyn Fairchild Hawks a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
When I came across this book on Goodreads, there was something about the blurb that made me want to read it, so when I got asked if I'd like to review it, I said yes instantly. While the first half of the book was a bit hit and miss, the second half really became interesting!
The title is a bit of a mouthful although interesting. I had a hard time remembering what the book was called due to the long name. Eventually, I memorized it, but I would still double check just to make sure I was right.
The cover might be a bit plain, but I think it suits this book perfectly! After the terrible incident that happens to Wendy, she kind of goes inside herself. I think this cover definitely captures that.
What bothered me a bit with the world building was I just felt like the school Wendy attended was racism central. I know that racism is a huge problem is some places, but it just felt a bit over the top in the beginning of the book. Luckily, about a third of the book in, the over the top racism thing stops, and the world building becomes more believable.
The pacing is fairly slow to begin with. However, about a little before halfway in, the pacing speeds up, and it quickly held my attention for the rest of the book. In fact, I couldn't put the book done after that! So if you start off a bit bored with the book, please do continue reading or you'll out miss out on a really good story.
The plot is interesting enough. It deals with racism, being an outcast, sexual abuse, and an emotionally distant mother as well as some other issues. I thought it was an original idea to use Michael Jackson as a teen girl's saint. I love the references to some artists of old.
The characters were written really well. Wendy, aside from her obsession with the king of pop, is just your average teenage girl. Her goal is to see Michael Jackson in concert in London. Wendy is definitely easy to relate to. Shaye comes across as being very cool and charismatic. He's instantly likable. I felt bad that I had ever liked him though after what he did to Wendy. My favorite character was Tanay though. I loved her attitude as well as her sass. She's super funny, yet she's a friend who's got your back. I think teenage girls will have an easy time relating to Wendy and/or Tanay.
The dialogue, for the most part, runs smoothly. However, at the beginning of the book, it does feel a little bit forced especially when it focuses on racism a little too heavily, at least I thought so. Some may get offended with the racism being used, but I didn't feel like the book itself was racist. I just felt that there was too much focus on how segregated Wendy's school is and how much racism (against all colors) there is in that school. Other than that, everything is smooth sailing. The character interactions feel normal, and the dialogue goes well with what a teen book should read like. There is some cussing in this book as well as some sexual situations, so I wouldn't recommend this book to younger teens.
Overall, How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought is a very intriguing book. The issues it deals with are issues that have plagued teens as well as adults for awhile. Hawks does a fantastic job of writing about this issues.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something a little more realistic than normal fiction with characters of whom are easy to relate to.
I'd give How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought by Lyn Fairchild Hawks a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Michael’s back, back again
Happy Halloween everyone! What better way to celebrate than with my review of the latest in the Halloween franchise?
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
An honest, captivating and respectful biopic
Biopics are not easy to perfect and when you’re dealing with an iconic figure such as Freddie Mercury, it becomes even harder. When this film was announced it seemed natural to feel a little bit of apprehension, because could anyone really portray Freddie? Who could bring him to life on screen before thousands of fans? Thankfully, for me at least, my worries were soon quenched as soon as I began to watch it. I thought was a stunning film and I have no problem admitting that brought tears to my eyes on several occasions.
Rami Malek was an excellent choice to portray Freddie, to the point where I found myself believing I was watching the man himself. His stage presence especially was spot on and the live performances were simply stunning to watch, especially with surround sound. I felt transported, part of the crowd, and it was such a special moment to share with the rest of the cinema. We become part of different times and places in a matter of minutes, giving you an idea of just how globally successful and adored Queen were. Despite the film’s main focus being Freddie, the supporting roles of the rest of the band were fantastic too, and I have so much praise for Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello for their performances.
Freddie dealt with a lot of discrimination during his career, particularly due to his race, sexuality and flamboyant personality. The film chose to portray these issues honestly, because pretending they didn’t exist would be an insult. When Freddie first starts performing with the rest of Queen, he’s greeted with questions such as “Who’s the P***?”, which for a modern audience is a terrible racial slur that I don’t even feel comfortable writing here. But for a Indian-British Parsi musician performing to a largely white audience in the ’70s, this word would have been used a lot. I feel it was important for the filmmakers to shed light on this as it provides context into Freddie’s upbringing and life that some may not have known about, including his real name: Farrokh Bulsara.
In terms of his sexuality, the film uses the role of the press to exploit and make a big deal about his personal relationships. The press conference scene was particularly uncomfortable as he’s bombarded with inappropriate questions instead of focusing on Queen and their music. He was constantly criticised in papers and magazines for simply being himself, and that’s a heartbreaking truth that Bohemian Rhapsody really hammers home. His long-term relationship with Mary Austin is also focused on throughout, and how that broke down but they still remained in touch. It’s a complex part of his life that the film does well to explore in just over 2 hours.
It’s not all bleak, and although these dark truths are explored, the film is fundamentally a celebration of Freddie’s life and extraordinary talent. Several Queen songs are present throughout the film and we even see the writing process behind some of them, my favourite being the creation of We Will Rock You in which they wanted the audience to play along with them through stomps and claps. The birth of Bohemian Rhapsody is comical in nature and received a lot of backlash at the time, but as we know, has since gone on to become an iconic song we all know the lyrics to.
Even in Freddie’s final days, after he was diagnosed with AIDS, the film encourages us to celebrate their music and make the most of the time Freddie has left, which is exactly what he himself wanted to do. I can’t think of a more respectful and considerate way to show it than that.
I could probably write an entire essay about just how much I thought Bohemian Rhapsody got right, but hopefully I’ve managed to condense my thoughts somewhat. This is a film you simply must experience for yourself, at least once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/14/bohemian-rhapsody-an-honest-captivating-and-respectful-biopic/
Rami Malek was an excellent choice to portray Freddie, to the point where I found myself believing I was watching the man himself. His stage presence especially was spot on and the live performances were simply stunning to watch, especially with surround sound. I felt transported, part of the crowd, and it was such a special moment to share with the rest of the cinema. We become part of different times and places in a matter of minutes, giving you an idea of just how globally successful and adored Queen were. Despite the film’s main focus being Freddie, the supporting roles of the rest of the band were fantastic too, and I have so much praise for Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello for their performances.
Freddie dealt with a lot of discrimination during his career, particularly due to his race, sexuality and flamboyant personality. The film chose to portray these issues honestly, because pretending they didn’t exist would be an insult. When Freddie first starts performing with the rest of Queen, he’s greeted with questions such as “Who’s the P***?”, which for a modern audience is a terrible racial slur that I don’t even feel comfortable writing here. But for a Indian-British Parsi musician performing to a largely white audience in the ’70s, this word would have been used a lot. I feel it was important for the filmmakers to shed light on this as it provides context into Freddie’s upbringing and life that some may not have known about, including his real name: Farrokh Bulsara.
In terms of his sexuality, the film uses the role of the press to exploit and make a big deal about his personal relationships. The press conference scene was particularly uncomfortable as he’s bombarded with inappropriate questions instead of focusing on Queen and their music. He was constantly criticised in papers and magazines for simply being himself, and that’s a heartbreaking truth that Bohemian Rhapsody really hammers home. His long-term relationship with Mary Austin is also focused on throughout, and how that broke down but they still remained in touch. It’s a complex part of his life that the film does well to explore in just over 2 hours.
It’s not all bleak, and although these dark truths are explored, the film is fundamentally a celebration of Freddie’s life and extraordinary talent. Several Queen songs are present throughout the film and we even see the writing process behind some of them, my favourite being the creation of We Will Rock You in which they wanted the audience to play along with them through stomps and claps. The birth of Bohemian Rhapsody is comical in nature and received a lot of backlash at the time, but as we know, has since gone on to become an iconic song we all know the lyrics to.
Even in Freddie’s final days, after he was diagnosed with AIDS, the film encourages us to celebrate their music and make the most of the time Freddie has left, which is exactly what he himself wanted to do. I can’t think of a more respectful and considerate way to show it than that.
I could probably write an entire essay about just how much I thought Bohemian Rhapsody got right, but hopefully I’ve managed to condense my thoughts somewhat. This is a film you simply must experience for yourself, at least once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/14/bohemian-rhapsody-an-honest-captivating-and-respectful-biopic/