Search
Search results
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Into The Crooked Place (Into The Crooked Place #1) in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2999418076">Into the Crooked Place</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3504840515">City of Spells</a> - TBR
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-76.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Into the Crooked Place by Alexandra Christo was a book I was very excited to read in the first place.
There is magic and potions, there is romance and adventure. The hype around it was huge, and it is still talked about in the bookish community.
What’s not to like?
Tavia sells magic potions on the market. One day, she is ordered to sell a new magic potion. When her friend Saxoni drinks the new potion, something bad happens. The potion makes people do terrible things - and Tavia and Saxoni need to stop it, before it destroys everyone!
The storytelling in this book was amazing. I was immediately teleported to a world where going to a market to buy a love potion is normal. I could connect with all characters immediately, and wanted to know more about them. The story is told from multiple character’s points of view, which I found appropriate for this story.
Apart from Tavia and Saxony, we also meet Wesley - who is Tavia’s underboss. He is the one that she follows orders from, and he is the one to grant her her freedom, once she earns it by working for him.
<b><i>“There are no good people, he said. Just ones who haven’t made bad choices yet.”</i></b>
We also meet Karam - a feisty warrior woman, who is fighting in pits for money. Karam is a character that I instantly liked, for her bravery and her free spirit. She knows who she is, she knows how she got there, and she knows exactly what she wants.
<b><i>“She had fought her way to her position and hadn’t needed prayer or magic to do it. Just her fists and her smarts and the knowledge that she could.”</i></b>
I liked Karam and she was probably my favorite character.
I think that her journey was the most adventurous compared to all the other characters, and I feel like she’s grown the most.
<b><i>“She felt at home. And she knew why. She knew then that home could be anywhere, because it wasn’t a place, but a feeling. It was made up of people, not bricks, and it was something you could create for yourself, just like family.”</i></b>
The legacy that Karam and Saxony carry is very conveniently revealed. The author only revealed this when it was needed in the book, to fit a certain situation and prompt plot twists. This wasn’t something I enjoyed, and together with how the book ended, it did leave a bitter aftertaste. I think I would have liked the book more if certain reveals were handled better, and the ending was more interesting.
<b><i>“Sometimes, words spoken in anger are not words spoken in truth, dila.”</i></b>
To sum everything up, I still think Into the Crooked Place was amazing and enjoyable.
I enjoyed being in this magical world and I enjoyed the adventures the characters went through. If you’ve been reading my reviews, you will know I love a good versus evil battle, and this book did indeed have that. Would I change the ending? Yes. Would I change the way the reveals were handled? Yes. But was this still an amazing book? Most definitely. If you love young-adult magic and adventure books - you will enjoy this one!
Thank you to the teams at Hot Key Books and ReadersFirst, for sending me a copy of this book. Into the Crooked Place is the first book in the series. The second book is called City of Spells, and is expected to come out in 2021.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2999418076">Into the Crooked Place</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3504840515">City of Spells</a> - TBR
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-76.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Into the Crooked Place by Alexandra Christo was a book I was very excited to read in the first place.
There is magic and potions, there is romance and adventure. The hype around it was huge, and it is still talked about in the bookish community.
What’s not to like?
Tavia sells magic potions on the market. One day, she is ordered to sell a new magic potion. When her friend Saxoni drinks the new potion, something bad happens. The potion makes people do terrible things - and Tavia and Saxoni need to stop it, before it destroys everyone!
The storytelling in this book was amazing. I was immediately teleported to a world where going to a market to buy a love potion is normal. I could connect with all characters immediately, and wanted to know more about them. The story is told from multiple character’s points of view, which I found appropriate for this story.
Apart from Tavia and Saxony, we also meet Wesley - who is Tavia’s underboss. He is the one that she follows orders from, and he is the one to grant her her freedom, once she earns it by working for him.
<b><i>“There are no good people, he said. Just ones who haven’t made bad choices yet.”</i></b>
We also meet Karam - a feisty warrior woman, who is fighting in pits for money. Karam is a character that I instantly liked, for her bravery and her free spirit. She knows who she is, she knows how she got there, and she knows exactly what she wants.
<b><i>“She had fought her way to her position and hadn’t needed prayer or magic to do it. Just her fists and her smarts and the knowledge that she could.”</i></b>
I liked Karam and she was probably my favorite character.
I think that her journey was the most adventurous compared to all the other characters, and I feel like she’s grown the most.
<b><i>“She felt at home. And she knew why. She knew then that home could be anywhere, because it wasn’t a place, but a feeling. It was made up of people, not bricks, and it was something you could create for yourself, just like family.”</i></b>
The legacy that Karam and Saxony carry is very conveniently revealed. The author only revealed this when it was needed in the book, to fit a certain situation and prompt plot twists. This wasn’t something I enjoyed, and together with how the book ended, it did leave a bitter aftertaste. I think I would have liked the book more if certain reveals were handled better, and the ending was more interesting.
<b><i>“Sometimes, words spoken in anger are not words spoken in truth, dila.”</i></b>
To sum everything up, I still think Into the Crooked Place was amazing and enjoyable.
I enjoyed being in this magical world and I enjoyed the adventures the characters went through. If you’ve been reading my reviews, you will know I love a good versus evil battle, and this book did indeed have that. Would I change the ending? Yes. Would I change the way the reveals were handled? Yes. But was this still an amazing book? Most definitely. If you love young-adult magic and adventure books - you will enjoy this one!
Thank you to the teams at Hot Key Books and ReadersFirst, for sending me a copy of this book. Into the Crooked Place is the first book in the series. The second book is called City of Spells, and is expected to come out in 2021.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Simon Spier keeps a huge secret from his family, his friends, and all of his classmates: he's gay. When that secret is threatened, Simon must face everyone and come to terms with his identity.
I had been looking forward to this one, book adaptation... of course I was going to be... so getting this as our secret screening was fun great. But it really divided the pack and there was much discussion online about it after. But not so much about the film. I'm going to get the grumpy portion of this out of the way first.
I think this is only the second secret screening I've been to. The first one was Molly's Game, which again, was one I'd been looking forward to seeing, and when the card came up at the beginning I think only one person left. It certainly wasn't many. The card comes up for this one... well, it was like a mass exodus. Without the film even rolling I think we lost about half a dozen people. After the first couple of minutes we lost another load. It was that second lot that made me lose faith in humanity a little, because it wasn't more than seconds after Simon says that he's gay that I heard disapproving noises and footsteps trotting out of seats.
Most people online said the same thing about their cinemas. And I know that you don't have to watch every film ever made. But don't just turn your nose up at it because (and here's me being optimistic) it's a young adult film/novel. If you turned your nose up at it because its main character is gay... well... welcome to the real world, they're here, they're queer, and they're here to stay.
I was pleased to see that lots of people gave it a chance, and many seemed to enjoy it. There was a lot of hate for it from others though, and honestly, when you read the comments for it... well, just don't read the comments. For every good there is a bad, but most of the bad either just walked out or don't really give much in the way of a genuine excuse. Several feel like they're being cheated by Cineworld for showing things that aren't blockbusters... people... this isn't how these things work. Trust me, the company comes to the middle man who presents it to the consumer. Business 101. Companies know that you're going to pay to see their big blockbusters and buy their merchandise... why would they give it to you for free? (Yes I know we all have Unlimited cards and essentially get them for free, but you get my meaning.) There's already hype around them, they don't need more. Anyway, away from my rant.
Love, Simon was a wonderful film, and despite what some are saying, (sorry, swerving into rant territory there again) it was laugh out loud funny... and everyone was laughing. Except those people who left without giving it a chance... wow, sorry, I just can't let this go.
If you haven't quite forgotten your teenage years you'll see lots of bits in this that really ring a bell. Those awkward moments, the crushes, the annoying teachers, the pain. If you've experienced any of them then there will be bits that you physically react to. You can feel the emotions that are running around the characters, you know the decisions they're making are good, bad and terrible, and you can almost see the future. As the story unfolds you really do get pulled along with Simon. You feel his pain and you feel his joy.
A genuine smile inducing film. I think you can see my favourite bit in one of the trailers... straight people not having to come out... it honestly cracked me up.
Of course the book is in the TBR, I'll get round to it eventually. But regardless of how it stacks up next to the book is was a wonderful film. You can only hope that it is enlightening to some that watch it, and helpful to others.
I had been looking forward to this one, book adaptation... of course I was going to be... so getting this as our secret screening was fun great. But it really divided the pack and there was much discussion online about it after. But not so much about the film. I'm going to get the grumpy portion of this out of the way first.
I think this is only the second secret screening I've been to. The first one was Molly's Game, which again, was one I'd been looking forward to seeing, and when the card came up at the beginning I think only one person left. It certainly wasn't many. The card comes up for this one... well, it was like a mass exodus. Without the film even rolling I think we lost about half a dozen people. After the first couple of minutes we lost another load. It was that second lot that made me lose faith in humanity a little, because it wasn't more than seconds after Simon says that he's gay that I heard disapproving noises and footsteps trotting out of seats.
Most people online said the same thing about their cinemas. And I know that you don't have to watch every film ever made. But don't just turn your nose up at it because (and here's me being optimistic) it's a young adult film/novel. If you turned your nose up at it because its main character is gay... well... welcome to the real world, they're here, they're queer, and they're here to stay.
I was pleased to see that lots of people gave it a chance, and many seemed to enjoy it. There was a lot of hate for it from others though, and honestly, when you read the comments for it... well, just don't read the comments. For every good there is a bad, but most of the bad either just walked out or don't really give much in the way of a genuine excuse. Several feel like they're being cheated by Cineworld for showing things that aren't blockbusters... people... this isn't how these things work. Trust me, the company comes to the middle man who presents it to the consumer. Business 101. Companies know that you're going to pay to see their big blockbusters and buy their merchandise... why would they give it to you for free? (Yes I know we all have Unlimited cards and essentially get them for free, but you get my meaning.) There's already hype around them, they don't need more. Anyway, away from my rant.
Love, Simon was a wonderful film, and despite what some are saying, (sorry, swerving into rant territory there again) it was laugh out loud funny... and everyone was laughing. Except those people who left without giving it a chance... wow, sorry, I just can't let this go.
If you haven't quite forgotten your teenage years you'll see lots of bits in this that really ring a bell. Those awkward moments, the crushes, the annoying teachers, the pain. If you've experienced any of them then there will be bits that you physically react to. You can feel the emotions that are running around the characters, you know the decisions they're making are good, bad and terrible, and you can almost see the future. As the story unfolds you really do get pulled along with Simon. You feel his pain and you feel his joy.
A genuine smile inducing film. I think you can see my favourite bit in one of the trailers... straight people not having to come out... it honestly cracked me up.
Of course the book is in the TBR, I'll get round to it eventually. But regardless of how it stacks up next to the book is was a wonderful film. You can only hope that it is enlightening to some that watch it, and helpful to others.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Some Like It Hot (1959) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The dilemma of an obsessed movie-goer is choosing what films to watch when things clash. It really wasn't a tough choice when an Unlimited Screening was announced for the same evening as Some Like It Hot. The screening was only two days before release, I could wait. It wasn't big enough to miss the chance to see this classic on the big screen.
It's been a long time since I've seen this and I'm always a little cautious about revisiting old favourites as my taste in films gradually changes. But luckily this one hadn't lost any of it's magic. It's a simple idea that's taken to the next level by a talented cast and wonderful script.
One of the reasons I think I love old movies so much is that they had a love of musical elements. I was always a fan of The Andrews Sisters, the Road movies, and of course musicals. A jazzy little number kept you buzzing and always knocked the entertainment value up a notch. This is no exception. Everyone loves some sultry Monroe be-dooping on screen.
There are lots of snippets online about the production and it give you a fantastic background. Monroe was terrible at remembering even that basic lines and they ended up writing lots of them down to hide on set, but some how that still didn't help to reduce the number of takes they needed to do. Curtis' prim and proper Josephine actually came about from him being uncomfortable dressed as a woman. Lemmon gave up being taught how to walk in heels because he wanted to look like a man wearing heels for the part. Despite it being in Monroe's contract that all her films had to be in colour they agreed to film in black and white because the make-up Curtis and Lemmon were wearing made them looking slightly green on camera... that's just some of it. It's well worth having a look around for other tidbits.
It's amazing to think that the flawless looking make-up in black and white looks completely different in colour. Let's face it, they both turn out looking pretty good dressed as women.
As a double act Curtis and Lemmon are wonderful together, both and Joe & Jerry and Josephine and Daphne. The dialogue, timing and the way they interact physically is all brilliant. One of my favourite bits is very early on when they realise the "funeral" is about to get raided. It's cool, calm and coordinated, not a beat is missed and the whole sequence puts a smile on my face.
I went to log this film on Letterboxd and noticed that I'd rated it as a four star film. Accurate, I thought to myself. But as I started to write notes for this review I realised I was sorely under appreciating it. How could I not give this five stars? Everything it does, it nails.
Being really picky, I'm not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe as an actress. I never feel that she stood up on her own, it tends to be the effort of everyone else that makes her shine better. That being said, she still has that massive impact on the screen and a naivety that needs to be there for some of the humour to work. Curtis dropping the dead pan line about water polo wouldn't have worked with any other type of character.
If I were to list the best bits of the film here I might as well just narrate you the whole movie. There are so many fun bits but one of my top ones is the engagement. That childlike glee is just so much fun that you're rooting for it to work too.
What you should do
There's no way that you should go through life without seeing Some Like It Hot. While there are a couple of moments that feel dated the humour is so good it would be a travesty to miss it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Tough choice... Curtis' agility when climbing the front of the hotel, Lemmon's dance moves, or the ability to make a cocktail in a hot water bottle... decisions decisions!
It's been a long time since I've seen this and I'm always a little cautious about revisiting old favourites as my taste in films gradually changes. But luckily this one hadn't lost any of it's magic. It's a simple idea that's taken to the next level by a talented cast and wonderful script.
One of the reasons I think I love old movies so much is that they had a love of musical elements. I was always a fan of The Andrews Sisters, the Road movies, and of course musicals. A jazzy little number kept you buzzing and always knocked the entertainment value up a notch. This is no exception. Everyone loves some sultry Monroe be-dooping on screen.
There are lots of snippets online about the production and it give you a fantastic background. Monroe was terrible at remembering even that basic lines and they ended up writing lots of them down to hide on set, but some how that still didn't help to reduce the number of takes they needed to do. Curtis' prim and proper Josephine actually came about from him being uncomfortable dressed as a woman. Lemmon gave up being taught how to walk in heels because he wanted to look like a man wearing heels for the part. Despite it being in Monroe's contract that all her films had to be in colour they agreed to film in black and white because the make-up Curtis and Lemmon were wearing made them looking slightly green on camera... that's just some of it. It's well worth having a look around for other tidbits.
It's amazing to think that the flawless looking make-up in black and white looks completely different in colour. Let's face it, they both turn out looking pretty good dressed as women.
As a double act Curtis and Lemmon are wonderful together, both and Joe & Jerry and Josephine and Daphne. The dialogue, timing and the way they interact physically is all brilliant. One of my favourite bits is very early on when they realise the "funeral" is about to get raided. It's cool, calm and coordinated, not a beat is missed and the whole sequence puts a smile on my face.
I went to log this film on Letterboxd and noticed that I'd rated it as a four star film. Accurate, I thought to myself. But as I started to write notes for this review I realised I was sorely under appreciating it. How could I not give this five stars? Everything it does, it nails.
Being really picky, I'm not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe as an actress. I never feel that she stood up on her own, it tends to be the effort of everyone else that makes her shine better. That being said, she still has that massive impact on the screen and a naivety that needs to be there for some of the humour to work. Curtis dropping the dead pan line about water polo wouldn't have worked with any other type of character.
If I were to list the best bits of the film here I might as well just narrate you the whole movie. There are so many fun bits but one of my top ones is the engagement. That childlike glee is just so much fun that you're rooting for it to work too.
What you should do
There's no way that you should go through life without seeing Some Like It Hot. While there are a couple of moments that feel dated the humour is so good it would be a travesty to miss it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Tough choice... Curtis' agility when climbing the front of the hotel, Lemmon's dance moves, or the ability to make a cocktail in a hot water bottle... decisions decisions!
Money Box Pro. Savings Goals
Finance and Lifestyle
App
Take control of your focused savings plan and put the power to purchase what you want into the palm...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Karma (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Neat idea for a movie (1 more)
Samantha Belle
Script is rambling and needs much tightening up (1 more)
Acting is often sub-par
You’ve got to admire the effort here.
Positives:
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Lovecraft's Monsters in Books
Dec 19, 2017
I received an ARC copy of this anthology in exchange for my honest opinion, and regrettably, I wasn't overly impressed with it. I made notes as I read, and those notes are what I will be posting here now:
Well, I'm about to start the third story, but I thought I'd keep a running commentary on each story so that when it came time to review it, I wouldn't forget how I felt about each individual one.
"Only the End of the World Again" by Neil Gaiman was good. Probably 4 stars. It wasn't the typical greatness that I USUALLY associate with Gaiman, but it was still a quick and enjoyable read. I read it aloud to my eight year old son (editing out the few naughty words, of course) and even he really loved it. There were a few places where he didn't understand what was going on, but overall, he thought it was a great story.
"Bulldozer" by Laird Barron was terrible. I couldn't make it through the story. The writing style was AWFUL. I know that it was supposed to be written -- in parts -- in a stream of consciousness style, but it was awful. I stopped about halfway through and just said screw it. I wouldn't even give this story a star at all.
Finished "Red Goat Black Goat" by Nadia Bulkin. While it had some nice creepy vibes, it was, overall, a 2 star story. I realize, as a short story, it is limited by length and time constraints, but the story just starts in the middle of a world about which the reader has no idea whatsoever. It's not what I would call a good story, although, as I said, there were a couple of moments when I had to look up from my completely dark bedroom and make sure I didn't hear bumps in the night, so it gets one extra star for that.
"The Same Deep Waters As You" was actually fantastic. It's been the best story in the anthology so far. I know, I know... me saying something is better than a Gaiman story is almost unheard of, but this story by Hodge was truly good from beginning to end. It was completely unique, and even though it was a short story, it was completely self-contained. It didn't leave me wondering what happened before the story started to get us to this place, and it ended perfectly, not in a 'to be continued' style. Also, just wow. The ending was a killer. I did NOT see it coming AT ALL. Five stars.
"A Quarter to Three" gets 2.5 stars simply because of Newman's writing style. She is very articulate, and I loved the tone of this story. The content of the story, however, wasn't that great. However, I feel compelled to give it an extra half a star -- bumping it up to 3 stars -- for this one, perfect line:
"It was easy to see what she had seen in him; it left a thin damp trail between his scuffed footprints." Ha. Loved it
"The Dappled Things" was a total bust. 1 star, and that is being generous. So boring I nearly fell asleep twice trying to get through the first two pages. Not worth the time it took to read it.
"Inelastic Collisions" was decent. I have nothing really bad to say about it, but I have nothing super great to say about it either. Three stars.
"Remnants" deserves about 3.5 stars. It's pretty decent. I like the story and the way the plot developed. However, I dislike how abruptly it ended. If the ending had been a little more well-rounded, it could have easily been a 4.5 star story.
"Love is Forbidden We Croak and Howl" -- eh. Two stars. Didn't really hold my interest that much. I kept drifting off...
"The Sect of the Idiot" was a solid three stars. Overall the story wasn't super, but I really, really, REALLY did love the detail paid to the dream sequence. It was beautiful and creepy and dark. Lovely bit of storytelling, that was.
"Jar of Salts" is easily 4.5 stars. Short little Lovecraftian poem, but such a pleasure to read.
Well, I'm finally finished with Lovecraft's Monsters, but honestly, after the last update I made, none of the other stories were really worth reading. I was, overall, a bit disappointed with the book. :-/
Well, I'm about to start the third story, but I thought I'd keep a running commentary on each story so that when it came time to review it, I wouldn't forget how I felt about each individual one.
"Only the End of the World Again" by Neil Gaiman was good. Probably 4 stars. It wasn't the typical greatness that I USUALLY associate with Gaiman, but it was still a quick and enjoyable read. I read it aloud to my eight year old son (editing out the few naughty words, of course) and even he really loved it. There were a few places where he didn't understand what was going on, but overall, he thought it was a great story.
"Bulldozer" by Laird Barron was terrible. I couldn't make it through the story. The writing style was AWFUL. I know that it was supposed to be written -- in parts -- in a stream of consciousness style, but it was awful. I stopped about halfway through and just said screw it. I wouldn't even give this story a star at all.
Finished "Red Goat Black Goat" by Nadia Bulkin. While it had some nice creepy vibes, it was, overall, a 2 star story. I realize, as a short story, it is limited by length and time constraints, but the story just starts in the middle of a world about which the reader has no idea whatsoever. It's not what I would call a good story, although, as I said, there were a couple of moments when I had to look up from my completely dark bedroom and make sure I didn't hear bumps in the night, so it gets one extra star for that.
"The Same Deep Waters As You" was actually fantastic. It's been the best story in the anthology so far. I know, I know... me saying something is better than a Gaiman story is almost unheard of, but this story by Hodge was truly good from beginning to end. It was completely unique, and even though it was a short story, it was completely self-contained. It didn't leave me wondering what happened before the story started to get us to this place, and it ended perfectly, not in a 'to be continued' style. Also, just wow. The ending was a killer. I did NOT see it coming AT ALL. Five stars.
"A Quarter to Three" gets 2.5 stars simply because of Newman's writing style. She is very articulate, and I loved the tone of this story. The content of the story, however, wasn't that great. However, I feel compelled to give it an extra half a star -- bumping it up to 3 stars -- for this one, perfect line:
"It was easy to see what she had seen in him; it left a thin damp trail between his scuffed footprints." Ha. Loved it
"The Dappled Things" was a total bust. 1 star, and that is being generous. So boring I nearly fell asleep twice trying to get through the first two pages. Not worth the time it took to read it.
"Inelastic Collisions" was decent. I have nothing really bad to say about it, but I have nothing super great to say about it either. Three stars.
"Remnants" deserves about 3.5 stars. It's pretty decent. I like the story and the way the plot developed. However, I dislike how abruptly it ended. If the ending had been a little more well-rounded, it could have easily been a 4.5 star story.
"Love is Forbidden We Croak and Howl" -- eh. Two stars. Didn't really hold my interest that much. I kept drifting off...
"The Sect of the Idiot" was a solid three stars. Overall the story wasn't super, but I really, really, REALLY did love the detail paid to the dream sequence. It was beautiful and creepy and dark. Lovely bit of storytelling, that was.
"Jar of Salts" is easily 4.5 stars. Short little Lovecraftian poem, but such a pleasure to read.
Well, I'm finally finished with Lovecraft's Monsters, but honestly, after the last update I made, none of the other stories were really worth reading. I was, overall, a bit disappointed with the book. :-/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The One (2001) in Movies
Apr 7, 2018
Just Bad
What if the universe was not just one universe but a multitude of parallel universes? In each universe, you exist living a different life in the universe next door. Oh, and everytime one of you dies the other yous get stronger in every way, shape, and form. What if someone with no relation to astronomy or science figured out this secret and decided to travel to every single parallel universe killing his other replicas until he basically became a god? I'm kind of getting mad just typing it out, actually. But yeah, that's The One alright. Hot mess doesn't even begin to describe it.
Acting: 1
There were honestly times where I didn't know if I was watching an action film or an afterschool special. The lowest score I've ever given Acting before this was an 8 if that gives you any indication on my thoughts of the performances, or lack thereof, that came from The One. The lines were so badly telegraphed you could see them coming from a mile away. Overreactions in abundance. It was painful to watch so I know it had to be painful to film. Actors/actresses, you have one job...Terrible film or not, at least make me believe you.
Beginning: 6
From an action standpoint, not the worst start I've seen. However, I couldn't shake the fact that there was going to be a need for a lot of explaining in the future. I also couldn't shake the fact that that explanation was probably going to be extremely disappointing. While I enjoyed the fact that it came out of the gates swinging, there was a cohesiveness that was missing. Sadly, that carried through for the rest of the film.
Characters: 5
Both the acting and the scripted characters were wildly inconsistent. I was never really intrigued by any of the characters nor carried any desire to want to know anything more about them. Watching the characters move aimlessly through the story was like watching cardboard hold up a wall. Where did the 5 come from? That's simple: Jet Li is a badass. Give me multiple Jet Li's with superhuman abilities and you definitely have my attention.
At one point in the film, Jet Li faces the other Jet Li and goes, "After this, there will only be one." Who the hell wrote that in? Are you kidding me? We know there will only be one, that's the entire point of the movie. Killing me...
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 6
Decent action sequences here. Big "HOWEVER" coming up...wait for it....However, the main problem I couldn't shake was the same problem I had with the film Lucy: If you have god-like abilities, it's never really a fair fight. If it's never really a fair fight, things get boring really fast.
I felt like the girl whose boyfriend bit off more than he could chew in a fight and is now getting manhandled while she's screaming, "Stop hitting him!" It just gets old after awhile. Imagine if Superman's greatest opponent in a film was the National Guard? Definitely skipping that film.
Genre: 6
Not the best martial arts action film I've seen. Also not the worst, far from it in fact. Credit is deserved for at least trying to do something different. The execution may have fallen short, but there are still a handful of moments that I can say I enjoyed.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 10
Plot: 4
If it doesn't look good on paper, it's definitely not going to translate well to the big screen. Not remotely believable. So many holes I don't even know where to start. Again, how does this one man learn that there are other "hims" out there he can kill and get stronger? Not buying it. I'm giving it a 4 because the foundation was there. The follow-through, unfortunately, was not.
Even if the story had been fine, it would have been done in with the endless corny moments that appear out of nowhere. There's this one gas station scene...you know what, not even going to get into it. Let's just say it's bad. Real bad.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 50
Yikes. You know what's really sad? This film actually has flashes of brilliance. I can see the areas where it could have been tweaked to create a solid film. Sadly, that will never happen. Steer clear of this grenade.
Acting: 1
There were honestly times where I didn't know if I was watching an action film or an afterschool special. The lowest score I've ever given Acting before this was an 8 if that gives you any indication on my thoughts of the performances, or lack thereof, that came from The One. The lines were so badly telegraphed you could see them coming from a mile away. Overreactions in abundance. It was painful to watch so I know it had to be painful to film. Actors/actresses, you have one job...Terrible film or not, at least make me believe you.
Beginning: 6
From an action standpoint, not the worst start I've seen. However, I couldn't shake the fact that there was going to be a need for a lot of explaining in the future. I also couldn't shake the fact that that explanation was probably going to be extremely disappointing. While I enjoyed the fact that it came out of the gates swinging, there was a cohesiveness that was missing. Sadly, that carried through for the rest of the film.
Characters: 5
Both the acting and the scripted characters were wildly inconsistent. I was never really intrigued by any of the characters nor carried any desire to want to know anything more about them. Watching the characters move aimlessly through the story was like watching cardboard hold up a wall. Where did the 5 come from? That's simple: Jet Li is a badass. Give me multiple Jet Li's with superhuman abilities and you definitely have my attention.
At one point in the film, Jet Li faces the other Jet Li and goes, "After this, there will only be one." Who the hell wrote that in? Are you kidding me? We know there will only be one, that's the entire point of the movie. Killing me...
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 6
Decent action sequences here. Big "HOWEVER" coming up...wait for it....However, the main problem I couldn't shake was the same problem I had with the film Lucy: If you have god-like abilities, it's never really a fair fight. If it's never really a fair fight, things get boring really fast.
I felt like the girl whose boyfriend bit off more than he could chew in a fight and is now getting manhandled while she's screaming, "Stop hitting him!" It just gets old after awhile. Imagine if Superman's greatest opponent in a film was the National Guard? Definitely skipping that film.
Genre: 6
Not the best martial arts action film I've seen. Also not the worst, far from it in fact. Credit is deserved for at least trying to do something different. The execution may have fallen short, but there are still a handful of moments that I can say I enjoyed.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 10
Plot: 4
If it doesn't look good on paper, it's definitely not going to translate well to the big screen. Not remotely believable. So many holes I don't even know where to start. Again, how does this one man learn that there are other "hims" out there he can kill and get stronger? Not buying it. I'm giving it a 4 because the foundation was there. The follow-through, unfortunately, was not.
Even if the story had been fine, it would have been done in with the endless corny moments that appear out of nowhere. There's this one gas station scene...you know what, not even going to get into it. Let's just say it's bad. Real bad.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 50
Yikes. You know what's really sad? This film actually has flashes of brilliance. I can see the areas where it could have been tweaked to create a solid film. Sadly, that will never happen. Steer clear of this grenade.