Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Better Together in Books
Jun 10, 2021
A cute albeit long read about family and finding yourself
Jamie and Siri wind up at the same Re-Discover Yourself Retreat at Colorado because their lives are both slowly crumbling. Jamie is an aspiring comic in LA, but she can't seem to make it through her set without throwing up. She's been kicked out of her apartment and is back at home, stuck living under her famous father's oppressive thumb. As for Siri, ballet is her entire life. But when she suffers a career-ending injury, everything she's planned for falls apart. Jamie and Siri also happen to be sisters. They've grown up entirely apart: Jamie lives with their dad in LA and Siri with their mom in New Jersey. When they reunite at the retreat, they decide to switch places and seek revenge on their estranged parents. With the help of a little magic (yes, actual magic), Jamie shows up in New Jersey, looking just like Siri and Siri arrives in LA, looking like Jamie. Before they know it, Siri's hanging out with (and falling for) Jamie's best friend Dawn. And independent Jamie might be making an actual attachment with Zarar, their instructor from camp. But can Jamie and Siri set out to do what they planned--right their childhood wrongs?
"The day everything fell apart three months ago, I tripped into this anger ditch, and I can't seem to find my way out." -Siri
I stumbled across this book because it was billed as The Parent Trap meets Freaky Friday and well, sign me up. To me, there's not a ton of The Parent Trap here, as the goal isn't to reunite Siri and Jamie's parents, but rather seek some sort of vengeance on them, as they basically split the kids up when they were six and four and then each parent abandoned one of the siblings. Jamie and Siri never saw each other again, and Siri's mom told her Jamie was imaginary. So, um, yeah she has some baggage. The parents come across as pretty hideous here, to tell you the truth! (Reexamining The Parent Trap as an adult and parent is quite eye-opening!)
Also, reading some of the other reviews for this book, apparently there is some sort of rating controversy and issue with the author? I had no clue about any of this. I have no idea who Christine Riccio is. I am one of those people who dislikes videos of all kinds. News article is only a video? Won't watch. I don't even really like Instagram reels let alone Youtube. I don't even love that my car has a backup camera. So whatever drama surrounds this book totally escapes me. If you don't like a book about magic, I guess don't read a book about magic? I thought this was pretty cute. Anyway, just a disclaimer, I guess, that my review has nothing to do with any of whatever that drama is.
You need to go into BETTER TOGETHER prepared to suspend a little disbelief if you want to fully enjoy it. There is magic involved--a happy haunted trail at the retreat that leads to the sisters looking like each other. Jamie and Siri already look really similar, so it didn't seem like maybe they needed that? (You don't in the The Parent Trap, this purist says!) Then there is their terrible parents. It's sort of hard to believe people that awful exist.
But if you accept the magic and the awful parents, this is a cute book. Is it weird? Sure. But it was definitely better than I expected after reading all the hater reviews. I liked Jamie and Siri. They were flawed (pretty expected after those parents) but funny. There's some great bisexual representation and while the book is about family, forgiveness, and reuniting, there's some sweet side romantic plots, too. Siri and Dawn were pretty adorable. And Zarar, their canoe instructor who winds up in New York, is just a cutie. Siri and Dawn each have a grandparent living near/with them who offers some great comedic relief, as well.
The story is told from Jamie and Siri's perspectives and sometimes it takes a moment to remember which sister is speaking, though the chapters are labeled. As the book progresses, you get more used to which sister is which. Siri has a very annoying quirk where she says things like "intercoursing" instead of the f-word, which grew old quickly. The book was long--there definitely could have been some cutting down.
Still, this was a cute read and I enjoyed Siri and Jamie's story and watching each of them come into their own. I have Riccio's first book on my shelf, and I'll definitely pick it up at some point. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Wednesday Books and Netgalley, along with Goodreads, in return for an unbiased review. Look for BETTER TOGETHER on 06/01/2021!
"The day everything fell apart three months ago, I tripped into this anger ditch, and I can't seem to find my way out." -Siri
I stumbled across this book because it was billed as The Parent Trap meets Freaky Friday and well, sign me up. To me, there's not a ton of The Parent Trap here, as the goal isn't to reunite Siri and Jamie's parents, but rather seek some sort of vengeance on them, as they basically split the kids up when they were six and four and then each parent abandoned one of the siblings. Jamie and Siri never saw each other again, and Siri's mom told her Jamie was imaginary. So, um, yeah she has some baggage. The parents come across as pretty hideous here, to tell you the truth! (Reexamining The Parent Trap as an adult and parent is quite eye-opening!)
Also, reading some of the other reviews for this book, apparently there is some sort of rating controversy and issue with the author? I had no clue about any of this. I have no idea who Christine Riccio is. I am one of those people who dislikes videos of all kinds. News article is only a video? Won't watch. I don't even really like Instagram reels let alone Youtube. I don't even love that my car has a backup camera. So whatever drama surrounds this book totally escapes me. If you don't like a book about magic, I guess don't read a book about magic? I thought this was pretty cute. Anyway, just a disclaimer, I guess, that my review has nothing to do with any of whatever that drama is.
You need to go into BETTER TOGETHER prepared to suspend a little disbelief if you want to fully enjoy it. There is magic involved--a happy haunted trail at the retreat that leads to the sisters looking like each other. Jamie and Siri already look really similar, so it didn't seem like maybe they needed that? (You don't in the The Parent Trap, this purist says!) Then there is their terrible parents. It's sort of hard to believe people that awful exist.
But if you accept the magic and the awful parents, this is a cute book. Is it weird? Sure. But it was definitely better than I expected after reading all the hater reviews. I liked Jamie and Siri. They were flawed (pretty expected after those parents) but funny. There's some great bisexual representation and while the book is about family, forgiveness, and reuniting, there's some sweet side romantic plots, too. Siri and Dawn were pretty adorable. And Zarar, their canoe instructor who winds up in New York, is just a cutie. Siri and Dawn each have a grandparent living near/with them who offers some great comedic relief, as well.
The story is told from Jamie and Siri's perspectives and sometimes it takes a moment to remember which sister is speaking, though the chapters are labeled. As the book progresses, you get more used to which sister is which. Siri has a very annoying quirk where she says things like "intercoursing" instead of the f-word, which grew old quickly. The book was long--there definitely could have been some cutting down.
Still, this was a cute read and I enjoyed Siri and Jamie's story and watching each of them come into their own. I have Riccio's first book on my shelf, and I'll definitely pick it up at some point. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Wednesday Books and Netgalley, along with Goodreads, in return for an unbiased review. Look for BETTER TOGETHER on 06/01/2021!
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 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/3217515684">Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2371215543">Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets</a> - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3275165909">Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</a> - ★★★★
#4 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3328396363">Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-73.png"/>;
<b>Diving into the Harry Potter universe is a treat to my soul every time.</b>
There is something so familiar and comfortable to this world, especially Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, that always pulls me back to where it all started.
Since there is a lot of drama going on with the author at the moment, I want to say just this. While I do not agree with some of the author’s statements, her work meant a lot to me throughout my years, and I have chosen to draw a line between her personal life and her work. You may have a different opinion, and that is valid too.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling is one of my favorite books from the series. The year is filled with the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard Tournament, the fight for elves’ freedom, the beginning of the rising of evil and the terrible destiny of Cedric Diggory.
Harry has a weird dream about Voldemort at the beginning of the book. He lets Sirius Black know in a letter. Then, he and his friends, as well as the whole Weasley family attend the Quidditch World Cup, where there is an incident with Harry’s wand - that will start this book in a very dark way.
As the new school year of Hogwarts begins, Dumbledore has an exciting announcement to make. Hogwarts will be hosting the Triwizard tournament this year!
<b><i>“The Triwizard Tournament was first established some seven hundred years ago, as a friendly competition between the three largest European schools of wizardry - Hogwarts, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. A champion was selected to represent each school, and the three champions competed in three magical tasks. The schools took it in turns to host the Tournament once every five years, and it was generally agreed to be a most excellent way of establishing ties between young witches and wizards of different nationalities - until, that is, the death toll mounted so high that the Tournament was discontinued.”</i></b>
When the Goblet of Fire selects the three champions for each house, everyone is ready to move on. Viktor Krum, from Durmstrang, was selected first, followed by Fleur Delacour of Beauxbatons. The Goblet selected Cedric Diggory as the Hogwarts Champion.
But then, the Goblet spits out one more name - Harry Potter!
But how is that possible, when Harry hasn’t put his name in?
<b><i>“Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?” Dumbledore asked calmly. </i></b>
Careful of the fact that someone wants Harry to be in danger, he still needs to compete in the three tasks of the tournament. I loved all three tasks and how smart some wizards had to be to overcome their challenges.
I also really loved the Yule Ball, and the atmosphere it had. Everyone seemed happier and forgot their worries for the evening. Things were calming down before the real storm began.
The part I loved the most, which wasn’t included in the movies, was Harmione’s fight for the rights of the elves. She fought that they deserved to be free and be paid for their work, not be slaves to witches and wizards. On top of all this, what I loved most was Dobby’s story in this whole situation.
<b>Also, did you know this?</b>
Hermione’s name is pronounced “Her-my-oh-nee”. I have somehow always known this at the back of my mind, but because it’s pronounced as “Her-my-nee” in the movies, I have been saying it like that for a very long time.
<b><i>“If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”</i></b>
Still a favourite and still amazing. After all this time? Always!
<b><i>“Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery.”</i></b>
<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>;
<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/3217515684">Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2371215543">Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets</a> - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3275165909">Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</a> - ★★★★
#4 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3328396363">Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-73.png"/>;
<b>Diving into the Harry Potter universe is a treat to my soul every time.</b>
There is something so familiar and comfortable to this world, especially Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, that always pulls me back to where it all started.
Since there is a lot of drama going on with the author at the moment, I want to say just this. While I do not agree with some of the author’s statements, her work meant a lot to me throughout my years, and I have chosen to draw a line between her personal life and her work. You may have a different opinion, and that is valid too.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling is one of my favorite books from the series. The year is filled with the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard Tournament, the fight for elves’ freedom, the beginning of the rising of evil and the terrible destiny of Cedric Diggory.
Harry has a weird dream about Voldemort at the beginning of the book. He lets Sirius Black know in a letter. Then, he and his friends, as well as the whole Weasley family attend the Quidditch World Cup, where there is an incident with Harry’s wand - that will start this book in a very dark way.
As the new school year of Hogwarts begins, Dumbledore has an exciting announcement to make. Hogwarts will be hosting the Triwizard tournament this year!
<b><i>“The Triwizard Tournament was first established some seven hundred years ago, as a friendly competition between the three largest European schools of wizardry - Hogwarts, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. A champion was selected to represent each school, and the three champions competed in three magical tasks. The schools took it in turns to host the Tournament once every five years, and it was generally agreed to be a most excellent way of establishing ties between young witches and wizards of different nationalities - until, that is, the death toll mounted so high that the Tournament was discontinued.”</i></b>
When the Goblet of Fire selects the three champions for each house, everyone is ready to move on. Viktor Krum, from Durmstrang, was selected first, followed by Fleur Delacour of Beauxbatons. The Goblet selected Cedric Diggory as the Hogwarts Champion.
But then, the Goblet spits out one more name - Harry Potter!
But how is that possible, when Harry hasn’t put his name in?
<b><i>“Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?” Dumbledore asked calmly. </i></b>
Careful of the fact that someone wants Harry to be in danger, he still needs to compete in the three tasks of the tournament. I loved all three tasks and how smart some wizards had to be to overcome their challenges.
I also really loved the Yule Ball, and the atmosphere it had. Everyone seemed happier and forgot their worries for the evening. Things were calming down before the real storm began.
The part I loved the most, which wasn’t included in the movies, was Harmione’s fight for the rights of the elves. She fought that they deserved to be free and be paid for their work, not be slaves to witches and wizards. On top of all this, what I loved most was Dobby’s story in this whole situation.
<b>Also, did you know this?</b>
Hermione’s name is pronounced “Her-my-oh-nee”. I have somehow always known this at the back of my mind, but because it’s pronounced as “Her-my-nee” in the movies, I have been saying it like that for a very long time.
<b><i>“If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”</i></b>
Still a favourite and still amazing. After all this time? Always!
<b><i>“Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery.”</i></b>
<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>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Most of the female cast. (2 more)
Poirot's backstory.
Kenneth Branagh's mustache.
Slow-moving with little payoff. (2 more)
Nothing substantial happens for the first hour.
Not entertaining. Perfect example of first world problems.
A Drowzy Whodunit Loaded with Mediocrity
Death on the Nile is the sequel to 2017’s Murder on the Orient Express with director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh returning. The mystery thriller is based on the 1937 novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. Death on the Nile has been adapted before as a 1978 film and as a 2004 episode of the Poirot television series starring David Suchet.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Ambulance (2022) in Movies
Apr 18, 2022
Repetitive drone camera work (2 more)
Cringey humor and dialogue
An outdated and juvenile screenplay
Ambulance Review: Action At Its Dumbest And Gaudiest
Ambulance is a remake of a 2005 Danish film of the same name. Michael Bay’s version of the film follows former Marine Will Sharp (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) as he struggles to find a job and support his family; his wife requires an experimental surgery that their health insurance won’t pay for.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated If I Stay (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
The film's "live or die" premise is dumb, dangerous, and downright offensive. (4 more)
A totally lousy and illogical love story that lacks any heart.
The dialogue is almost as bad as Adam's 8-year-old-grade-level music lyrics.
It's far too frustrating and bland to be emotionally effective. The only pity I felt was for myself for having to sit through it for two hours.
If I Stay is unforgivable and reprehensible garbage. It should be avoided like the plague.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. If I Stay disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level.
Imagine yourself in a situation where your whole life is turned upside-down in an instant, and nothing will ever be the same again. That’s the troubling position young Mia Hall is faced with in If I Stay, after her and her family are involved in a terrible car accident. Mia wakes up from the crash, only to discover that she’s having some sort of transcendental experience, where she sees her own lifeless body being treated by paramedics. In her ghost-like form, no one is able to see or hear her, leaving her helpless as she watches her tragedy unfold. The devastating crash put her into a comatose state, and as she teeters on the verge of life and death, she’s informed by her nurse that whether or not she lives is entirely predicated on her will to survive. Based on the young adult novel by Gayle Forman, If I Stay asks us if life is still worth living even when all hope appears to be lost. Whether it’s really even worth it to endure life’s cruel hardship and heartache, and to muster the courage to face another day.
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Hobbit in Books
Nov 5, 2018
See the latest version of this review over on Ramble Media http://www.ramblemedia.com/?p=19585
Wow, am I glad that watching the film made me want to reread this timeless classic! I first read this as an eleven year old at school, trying to prove a point to a teacher that a child could read a book like this. I succeeded in reading it, thought the fantasy great, but remembered very little of the story or the fact there was another epic adventure waiting to be told by the much praised JRR Tolkien.
How I have missed out! The story follows a very plain, and at times fussy, Mr Baggins of Bagend, a Hobbit of Hobbiton, in the 'reasonable West', as he takes an adventure, in the company of 'dwarves' to save their long forsaken home. The company encounter many trials and tribulations along the way, from angry goblins, to giant spiders, to meddlesome elves and even Smaug the Terrible, but they triumph over them all.
Honestly, I cannot give praise enough for the book, and many have done so before in, what I am sure, will be better expressed reviews and accolades of praise, so I will aim to keep this short and sweet, picking up on key, outstanding features that bowled me over. The first thing I have to raise is the characterisation. The 'cast' of assembled characters, from the main company of the dwarves, to the helpers and and those that hinder them along their journey, are all thoroughly well explained by the creative use of authorial voice in the narration of events. Mr Baggins is, although a little fussy at times, an incredibly likable character, as I'm sure most hobbits are, who's funny outbursts and ideas make him the comedy relief at tense times. He is also, without a doubt, the brains and drive behind the adventure, once Gandalf has left, and proves that anyone, no matter how small can be a hero - a great quality to see in a major character who is less 'normal' than most as too often it's the popular, stereotypical heroes that dominate literature! Thorin and his company of bedraggled dwarves are a barrel of laughs at times (no pun intended!) and are all well developed in what is a relatively short story.
And that, I suppose, is the best feature of this book, for me at least! The development of plot, characters, scenery and everything else you could possibly wish to know about anyone involved in a story (eg background history etc) is all given to you in abundance, but they never overpower each other, they are instead woven intricately together in a brand of storytelling that belongs in oral tradition, not in words on a page. It is clear, especially after reading the foreword, that the Hobbit originated as a story to be told, not read, and incredibly, that makes it all the more readable as it hooks you in a way few books ever will. It aims to drag you, however reluctantly or willingly, into the adventure and take you away from your own little, safe, hobbit hole across the Shire and the Wild, and everywhere else they travel, with you feeling completely immersed as the final member of the company, but one who goes as unnoticed by the others as if you were wearing Bilbo's ring. However, the extremely clever thing that Tolkien does, and of this I am supremely envious of as I wish I could do this in my own writing, is that even though you feel so well informed, you still want to know more about them, and for the creative among us, we want to fill those gaps with our own imagination! Very rarely do I come across an author who manages to inform, excite, engage, and engender creativity in such a way in under 300 pages.
Finally, I guess I have to give credit to the wonderful drawings accompanying the text. Beautifully drawn, incredibly supportive of your own imaginative process, yet strangely, not limiting in letting you continue to let your imagination wander. The are a wonderful addition to the book, and I say that as someone who doesn't think a real book should have pictures, and add a greater accessibility to all of the new experiences you encounter as you travel through the story to the Lonely Mountain at the end.
And so, I draw my ramblings to a close, however there is plenty more to be said, that will be left unsaid, partly due to my desire to go and read Lord of the Rings for the first time as a result of reading The Hobbit. I can only conclude with the highest praise for this story, and the highest level of recommendation to anyone who has not yet read it, or those like me that think because they read it as a child it counts. This is a book that should, and deserves, to be read over and over again, and one of those occasions should be reading it aloud to a child, as that, is the only way to truly experience the wonderful story weaved by a master storyteller.
Wow, am I glad that watching the film made me want to reread this timeless classic! I first read this as an eleven year old at school, trying to prove a point to a teacher that a child could read a book like this. I succeeded in reading it, thought the fantasy great, but remembered very little of the story or the fact there was another epic adventure waiting to be told by the much praised JRR Tolkien.
How I have missed out! The story follows a very plain, and at times fussy, Mr Baggins of Bagend, a Hobbit of Hobbiton, in the 'reasonable West', as he takes an adventure, in the company of 'dwarves' to save their long forsaken home. The company encounter many trials and tribulations along the way, from angry goblins, to giant spiders, to meddlesome elves and even Smaug the Terrible, but they triumph over them all.
Honestly, I cannot give praise enough for the book, and many have done so before in, what I am sure, will be better expressed reviews and accolades of praise, so I will aim to keep this short and sweet, picking up on key, outstanding features that bowled me over. The first thing I have to raise is the characterisation. The 'cast' of assembled characters, from the main company of the dwarves, to the helpers and and those that hinder them along their journey, are all thoroughly well explained by the creative use of authorial voice in the narration of events. Mr Baggins is, although a little fussy at times, an incredibly likable character, as I'm sure most hobbits are, who's funny outbursts and ideas make him the comedy relief at tense times. He is also, without a doubt, the brains and drive behind the adventure, once Gandalf has left, and proves that anyone, no matter how small can be a hero - a great quality to see in a major character who is less 'normal' than most as too often it's the popular, stereotypical heroes that dominate literature! Thorin and his company of bedraggled dwarves are a barrel of laughs at times (no pun intended!) and are all well developed in what is a relatively short story.
And that, I suppose, is the best feature of this book, for me at least! The development of plot, characters, scenery and everything else you could possibly wish to know about anyone involved in a story (eg background history etc) is all given to you in abundance, but they never overpower each other, they are instead woven intricately together in a brand of storytelling that belongs in oral tradition, not in words on a page. It is clear, especially after reading the foreword, that the Hobbit originated as a story to be told, not read, and incredibly, that makes it all the more readable as it hooks you in a way few books ever will. It aims to drag you, however reluctantly or willingly, into the adventure and take you away from your own little, safe, hobbit hole across the Shire and the Wild, and everywhere else they travel, with you feeling completely immersed as the final member of the company, but one who goes as unnoticed by the others as if you were wearing Bilbo's ring. However, the extremely clever thing that Tolkien does, and of this I am supremely envious of as I wish I could do this in my own writing, is that even though you feel so well informed, you still want to know more about them, and for the creative among us, we want to fill those gaps with our own imagination! Very rarely do I come across an author who manages to inform, excite, engage, and engender creativity in such a way in under 300 pages.
Finally, I guess I have to give credit to the wonderful drawings accompanying the text. Beautifully drawn, incredibly supportive of your own imaginative process, yet strangely, not limiting in letting you continue to let your imagination wander. The are a wonderful addition to the book, and I say that as someone who doesn't think a real book should have pictures, and add a greater accessibility to all of the new experiences you encounter as you travel through the story to the Lonely Mountain at the end.
And so, I draw my ramblings to a close, however there is plenty more to be said, that will be left unsaid, partly due to my desire to go and read Lord of the Rings for the first time as a result of reading The Hobbit. I can only conclude with the highest praise for this story, and the highest level of recommendation to anyone who has not yet read it, or those like me that think because they read it as a child it counts. This is a book that should, and deserves, to be read over and over again, and one of those occasions should be reading it aloud to a child, as that, is the only way to truly experience the wonderful story weaved by a master storyteller.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
That fateful night in Haddonfield, Laurie Strode shot and killed Michael Myers or so she thought. As the ambulance that pulled what was thought to be the corpse of the world's most notorious serial killer, Michael Myers made sure everyone knew he was still alive the best way he could; by slaughtering whoever got in his way. Now, two years later, Laurie lives with Sheriff Brackett and his daughter Annie. Laurie struggles with hallucinations and panic attacks while believing the therapy she's receiving is only making her worse. As Laurie struggles with her newfound issues, Michael tries to reunite his family. Michael has visions of his mother with a white horse accompanied by his younger self. Michael is returning to Haddonfield to finish the job.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Mar 25, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
I've been looking forward to this since before it was cool.
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html