Search
Search results
Merissa (14196 KP) rated The Lucky Ones (Unpredictable #2) in Books
Nov 10, 2025
THE LUCKY ONES is the second standalone novel in the Unpredictable series. You don't have to have read book one to enjoy this one, although I personally enjoyed seeing Weston and Brenner from Not That Guy again.
Keston has a chip on his shoulder that he wears loud and proud. He did have a rough time of it, but still. Bailey is the opposite - he also had a rough time of it, but hides behind a cheerful mask. Both of them still have problems and issues they're dealing with. And both of them either don't communicate or miscommunicate!
As with all of this author's books, there is plenty of emotion and real-life problems to be overcome. Nothing is ever easy, and I love that about these books. It gives me enough 'fairytale' while still being grounded. There is steam aplenty between these two, but also a deeper, emotional connection, if only they would trust enough to allow it.
A great read that I thoroughly enjoyed and definitely recommend.
** Same worded review will appear elsewhere. **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Nov 10, 2025
Keston has a chip on his shoulder that he wears loud and proud. He did have a rough time of it, but still. Bailey is the opposite - he also had a rough time of it, but hides behind a cheerful mask. Both of them still have problems and issues they're dealing with. And both of them either don't communicate or miscommunicate!
As with all of this author's books, there is plenty of emotion and real-life problems to be overcome. Nothing is ever easy, and I love that about these books. It gives me enough 'fairytale' while still being grounded. There is steam aplenty between these two, but also a deeper, emotional connection, if only they would trust enough to allow it.
A great read that I thoroughly enjoyed and definitely recommend.
** Same worded review will appear elsewhere. **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Nov 10, 2025
Home (Songbird, #4)
9.0
Rate It
Book
Rachel Myers never meant to stay in Payton. Her eyes were set on bigger things than waitressing at...
Contemporary Romance
Love Potions (Warlocks MacGregor #1)
6.0
Rate It
Book
A little magickal mischief never hurt anyone… Erik MacGregor is from a clan of ancient Scottish...
Paranormal Romance Scotland
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Letters to Juliet (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Sophie’s life is heading in a good direction. She is the best fact checker at the New Yorker, engaged to an up-and-coming chef and is headed on a romantic trip to Verona, the setting of Shakespeare’s most famous play, Romeo and Juliet. But when Sophie discovers a multi-decade old letter written to Juliet she finds herself on a new and exciting adventure in the spirit of true love.
The film hitches its wagon on rising star Amanda Seyfried as the leading lady, playing romantically-inclined heroine Sophie. Amanda plays opposite Christopher Egan as Charlie, a pessimistic and overly protective grandson of Claire, a romantic adventurer and ideal parental-figure, played by the ever-enchanting Vanessa Redgrave.
It was easy to expect that this would be the same old American twenty-something in love tale, but I was unexpectedly surprised by the depth and honesty in “Letters to Juliet”. While it is much more a love story than a comedy, the film tackles a number of the usual subjects –love, loss, and destiny– in new ways. Throughout the film are touching scenes that blend laughter and keen, realistic emotion, without the all too familiar awkward result.
And it is hard not to smile while watching “Letters to Juliet”. The infusion of a love story mixes well with the films other themes: the importance of family and the value of cross-cultural perspectives. These complex themes support the romantic story so well that the experience is less like a fantasy and more akin to a well-layered tale told by a close friend. Mix in the stunning landscape of Italy and “Letters to Juliet” becomes a magically honest story about the quest for true love.
Filled with quality acting, romance, and many kinds of love while speaking across generations and cultural viewpoints, “Letters to Juliet” manages to pull at the heartstrings and share an inspiring and uplifting tale.
The film hitches its wagon on rising star Amanda Seyfried as the leading lady, playing romantically-inclined heroine Sophie. Amanda plays opposite Christopher Egan as Charlie, a pessimistic and overly protective grandson of Claire, a romantic adventurer and ideal parental-figure, played by the ever-enchanting Vanessa Redgrave.
It was easy to expect that this would be the same old American twenty-something in love tale, but I was unexpectedly surprised by the depth and honesty in “Letters to Juliet”. While it is much more a love story than a comedy, the film tackles a number of the usual subjects –love, loss, and destiny– in new ways. Throughout the film are touching scenes that blend laughter and keen, realistic emotion, without the all too familiar awkward result.
And it is hard not to smile while watching “Letters to Juliet”. The infusion of a love story mixes well with the films other themes: the importance of family and the value of cross-cultural perspectives. These complex themes support the romantic story so well that the experience is less like a fantasy and more akin to a well-layered tale told by a close friend. Mix in the stunning landscape of Italy and “Letters to Juliet” becomes a magically honest story about the quest for true love.
Filled with quality acting, romance, and many kinds of love while speaking across generations and cultural viewpoints, “Letters to Juliet” manages to pull at the heartstrings and share an inspiring and uplifting tale.
Sparring with Life Jimmy Tibbs My Autobiography
Book
The Kray Twins approached him to be his manager at the age of 18, but his dad had the unenviable...
TO
The Oxford Handbook of Nietzsche
Book
The diversity of Nietzsche's books, and the sheer range of his philosophical interests, have posed...
LOAC Essentials: Vol. 4: Alley OOP 1939
Book
"a darned good read" - The Comics Journal In 1939, Vincent Trout Hamlin had been writing and drawing...
Little Red Hood
Sarah Ardizzone and Marjolaine Leray
Book
She started life as a little red scribble and then, there she was: a little red hood. The wolf is...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
May 20, 2020
The Cloverfield Paradox is a kind of semi decent sci-fi thriller, with a relatively tenuous link to the wider Cloverfield story.
Much like 10 Cloverfield Lane, Paradox started life as a non-Cloverfield property. My only real issue with it's predecessor is that the link to the original film felt tacked onto the end, after the (excellent) main bulk of the story was done. My main issue with Paradox, is that the links are weaved in from the get go, but it's painfully obvious that the original plot was retconned to fit the overall Cloverfield narrative, and it doesn't quite flow properly.
This is most evident in the scenes that take place on Earth, and centre around Roger Davies' character. They just feel a bit out of place, even if they do have a monster movie kind of vibe.
The stuff that takes place up in space isn't too awful. A crew of scientists are orbiting earth in a space station, using a partical accelerator to find new sources of energy, energy that Earth desperately needs as reserves run low, and global war seems imminent. Of course, it doesn't all go to plan, and the crew find themselves in a parallel dimension, space and time is ripped apart etc etc.
To cut it short, lots of weird shit starts to happen aboard the station. It comes across like a poor man's Event Horizon. The pacing is a little off and the obligatory twist near the films climax is a bit silly and unearned, but honestly, there are worse sci-fi 'horror' films out there. There's some good effects work on show, and the cast are mostly likeable.
It's an entertaining enough film, but honestly, the Cloverfield links sort of spoil it a little. I love the original, and I loved 10 Cloverfield Lane, but I sincerely hope that if the franchise continues to move forward, they do some proper big budget sequels, and stop retconning other films!
Much like 10 Cloverfield Lane, Paradox started life as a non-Cloverfield property. My only real issue with it's predecessor is that the link to the original film felt tacked onto the end, after the (excellent) main bulk of the story was done. My main issue with Paradox, is that the links are weaved in from the get go, but it's painfully obvious that the original plot was retconned to fit the overall Cloverfield narrative, and it doesn't quite flow properly.
This is most evident in the scenes that take place on Earth, and centre around Roger Davies' character. They just feel a bit out of place, even if they do have a monster movie kind of vibe.
The stuff that takes place up in space isn't too awful. A crew of scientists are orbiting earth in a space station, using a partical accelerator to find new sources of energy, energy that Earth desperately needs as reserves run low, and global war seems imminent. Of course, it doesn't all go to plan, and the crew find themselves in a parallel dimension, space and time is ripped apart etc etc.
To cut it short, lots of weird shit starts to happen aboard the station. It comes across like a poor man's Event Horizon. The pacing is a little off and the obligatory twist near the films climax is a bit silly and unearned, but honestly, there are worse sci-fi 'horror' films out there. There's some good effects work on show, and the cast are mostly likeable.
It's an entertaining enough film, but honestly, the Cloverfield links sort of spoil it a little. I love the original, and I loved 10 Cloverfield Lane, but I sincerely hope that if the franchise continues to move forward, they do some proper big budget sequels, and stop retconning other films!