Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Source Code (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following upon his breakout success with the film Moon director Duncan Jones has returned with Source Code and has proven that he is not a one-hit wonder but also a talent on the rise.
The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Colter Stevens who, after waking up on a train, finds himself disoriented and unable to identify his travel companion, the attractive Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan), who sits across from him eagerly discussing things they appear to have spoken about previously.
Taking a quick survey of his surroundings, Colter finds out that he is on a train heading to Chicago and that he cannot explain how he ended up where he currently is. Colter is not given much time to ponder his situation as the train is suddenly rocked by a massive explosion and he finds himself engulfed in a wall of flame. Shortly thereafter Colter awakens and finds himself upside down and strapped into what appears to be a cockpit of some sort.
A voice soon fills the cockpit, followed by the face of the woman he can’t identify on a video monitor. Unable to ascertain what is going on, a frantic Colter only recalls that he was a helicopter pilot on mission in Afghanistan. The mystery woman (Vera Farmiga) tells him that he is now part of a top-secret project that is attempting to unravel the mystery behind the bombing of the train.
Before he can ask too many questions, Colter once again finds himself back on the train with Christina and the same sequence of events occur before the train is engulfed by devastating fireball. When he once again awakens in his cockpit, Colter learns that the project he’s involved with can send him back in time 8 minutes into the body of someone on the train. He will be sent back time and time again to relive those final 8 min. in an effort to determine who is responsible for the bombing.
Despite his protests, Colter relives the events each time looking for new clues and each time ending up engulfed in the fireball and awakening in his cockpit. Eventually after numerous trips to the past Colter becomes obsessed with not only getting to the bottom of the mystery but with saving Christina to whom he is becoming attached through their numerous 8 minute interactions. Colter is also desperate to determine his exact situation as he has no memory of how he ended up in the program and finds himself not only trying to solve the mystery of the bombing, save Christina, but also fill in the gaps in his memory.
What follows is a fast-paced, character-driven adventure film that relies on the interaction’s between the two leads rather than special effects to carry the film. Gyllenhaal and Monaghan have good chemistry with each other and the film has some nice twists and turns that will keep the audience engrossed even if the concepts of time travel and temporal mechanics escape them.
Jones keeps the film moving at a brisk pace and it does not drag or overstay its welcome. Like Moon, Jones has based the film around a leading man who is facing isolation and questioning his mental state. With what could’ve been a dumbed-down action film, Jones has exceeded expectations and produced a smart and innovative action thriller with a touch of science fiction and romance thrown in, a winning combination that makes for a very enjoyable film.
The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Colter Stevens who, after waking up on a train, finds himself disoriented and unable to identify his travel companion, the attractive Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan), who sits across from him eagerly discussing things they appear to have spoken about previously.
Taking a quick survey of his surroundings, Colter finds out that he is on a train heading to Chicago and that he cannot explain how he ended up where he currently is. Colter is not given much time to ponder his situation as the train is suddenly rocked by a massive explosion and he finds himself engulfed in a wall of flame. Shortly thereafter Colter awakens and finds himself upside down and strapped into what appears to be a cockpit of some sort.
A voice soon fills the cockpit, followed by the face of the woman he can’t identify on a video monitor. Unable to ascertain what is going on, a frantic Colter only recalls that he was a helicopter pilot on mission in Afghanistan. The mystery woman (Vera Farmiga) tells him that he is now part of a top-secret project that is attempting to unravel the mystery behind the bombing of the train.
Before he can ask too many questions, Colter once again finds himself back on the train with Christina and the same sequence of events occur before the train is engulfed by devastating fireball. When he once again awakens in his cockpit, Colter learns that the project he’s involved with can send him back in time 8 minutes into the body of someone on the train. He will be sent back time and time again to relive those final 8 min. in an effort to determine who is responsible for the bombing.
Despite his protests, Colter relives the events each time looking for new clues and each time ending up engulfed in the fireball and awakening in his cockpit. Eventually after numerous trips to the past Colter becomes obsessed with not only getting to the bottom of the mystery but with saving Christina to whom he is becoming attached through their numerous 8 minute interactions. Colter is also desperate to determine his exact situation as he has no memory of how he ended up in the program and finds himself not only trying to solve the mystery of the bombing, save Christina, but also fill in the gaps in his memory.
What follows is a fast-paced, character-driven adventure film that relies on the interaction’s between the two leads rather than special effects to carry the film. Gyllenhaal and Monaghan have good chemistry with each other and the film has some nice twists and turns that will keep the audience engrossed even if the concepts of time travel and temporal mechanics escape them.
Jones keeps the film moving at a brisk pace and it does not drag or overstay its welcome. Like Moon, Jones has based the film around a leading man who is facing isolation and questioning his mental state. With what could’ve been a dumbed-down action film, Jones has exceeded expectations and produced a smart and innovative action thriller with a touch of science fiction and romance thrown in, a winning combination that makes for a very enjoyable film.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Bloodshot (Cheshire Red Reports, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
What a truly awesome and fresh take on vampires in the crowded genre of Urban Fantasy! The star of <u><b>Bloodshot</b></u> is vampire Raylene Pendle, a top thief of priceless artifacts, who takes on a case from another vampire. This vampire, Ian Stott, was blinded by a top-secret government program and wants Raylene to steal back papers dealing with those experiments. What follows is a fast-paced, scene-changing adventure filled with unique characters that fulfills everything the book promised and more.
Raylene is your typical vampire in a lot of ways: the sun gives her a nasty sunburn to the extent of death, there's no awakening to dusk after decapitation or going up in flames, and of course, she's preternaturally fast and strong. However, she differs in that she's paranoid, self-deprecating, neurotic, and a tad OCD. So while Raylene can kick some major ass and make sarcastic remarks like the rest of the UF heroines, she also second- (and third and fourth) guesses herself a lot and is always prepared for the worst, usually thanks to her quick wits and sometimes even to the helpful contents of her "go-bag". I found Raylene to be a terrific protagonist, and for someone who claims to be anti-social, she sure picks up a lot of "pet people" throughout the duration of the book, which makes her a big, warm, gooey marshmallow inside (even if she doesn't own up to the fact).
What did surprise me was how funny the book was. I laughed, giggled, chortled, snorted, and smiled (usually rather goofily) quite often (there was many a line that left me in hysterics -- good thing I was reading in the privacy of my own home). Judging by the cover, I expected a more serious and suspenseful read, but while I wouldn't say this was exactly light, it wasn't as heavy as I imagined either. The plot moves swiftly each step of the way and kept me glued to the pages; there wasn't one dull moment to be had. Every character that popped up in the book was interesting and fully fleshed out, no bores within these covers, and helped move the story along. The writing was great, from Raylene's first-person inner dialogue to the action scenes, not one thing bothered me overly much.
While there is a sense of closure to the book as a whole, the story is really just beginning and I am left eager (and impatient beyond belief) for the next installment, [b:Hellbent|9842559|Hellbent (Cheshire Red Reports, #2)|Cherie Priest|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nocover-60x80.jpg|14733361] (set to come out August 30, 2011). If one book can make you a fan of an author, surely this one did it for me. Cherie Priest created a great intro to a character whose very vitality is evident every page of this book and has made Raylene one of my new favorites in the UF field.
Raylene is your typical vampire in a lot of ways: the sun gives her a nasty sunburn to the extent of death, there's no awakening to dusk after decapitation or going up in flames, and of course, she's preternaturally fast and strong. However, she differs in that she's paranoid, self-deprecating, neurotic, and a tad OCD. So while Raylene can kick some major ass and make sarcastic remarks like the rest of the UF heroines, she also second- (and third and fourth) guesses herself a lot and is always prepared for the worst, usually thanks to her quick wits and sometimes even to the helpful contents of her "go-bag". I found Raylene to be a terrific protagonist, and for someone who claims to be anti-social, she sure picks up a lot of "pet people" throughout the duration of the book, which makes her a big, warm, gooey marshmallow inside (even if she doesn't own up to the fact).
What did surprise me was how funny the book was. I laughed, giggled, chortled, snorted, and smiled (usually rather goofily) quite often (there was many a line that left me in hysterics -- good thing I was reading in the privacy of my own home). Judging by the cover, I expected a more serious and suspenseful read, but while I wouldn't say this was exactly light, it wasn't as heavy as I imagined either. The plot moves swiftly each step of the way and kept me glued to the pages; there wasn't one dull moment to be had. Every character that popped up in the book was interesting and fully fleshed out, no bores within these covers, and helped move the story along. The writing was great, from Raylene's first-person inner dialogue to the action scenes, not one thing bothered me overly much.
While there is a sense of closure to the book as a whole, the story is really just beginning and I am left eager (and impatient beyond belief) for the next installment, [b:Hellbent|9842559|Hellbent (Cheshire Red Reports, #2)|Cherie Priest|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nocover-60x80.jpg|14733361] (set to come out August 30, 2011). If one book can make you a fan of an author, surely this one did it for me. Cherie Priest created a great intro to a character whose very vitality is evident every page of this book and has made Raylene one of my new favorites in the UF field.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Top Gun: Maverick (2022) in Movies
May 19, 2022
Back in 1987, Tom Cruise and Paramount released “Top Gun” and in doing so created a cultural phenomenon that launched Cruise into Superstardom and became an enduring classic.
Now after decades away and delays due to the pandemic, Cruise has returned to the franchise with “Top Gun: Maverick” and has crafted the rare feat, of a sequel that is not only better than the original but also gives audiences an edge of the seat summer event film when it is needed the most.
Cruise stars as Captain Pete Mitchell who after thirty years is not only haunted by his past but unable to shed his insubordinate and impulsive ways which have kept him from reaching the rank of Admiral and have moved him from one assignment to another.
After his latest action confirms his incredible aviation skills but infuriates the upper brass in the process, Mitchell is out of options as he is unwilling to retire, unable to be promoted, and out of posting options. He is tasked by an old friend with enough clout to watch out for him to return to the Top Gun program as an instructor. Mitchell is hesitant as his last attempt as an instructor did not last long and he believes he is better suited to fly versus teaching.
It is learned that an enemy faction is about to open a Uranium enrichment facility in violation of established law that would threaten the region, and Mitchell is tasked with training a team of Top Gun graduates in three weeks who can make what appears to be a near-impossible assault on the facility to destroy it before it becomes a threat.
While the assembled pilots represent a brash and talented group, Mitchell must contend with the ghosts of his past as one of the members Bradley ‘Rooster’ Bradshaw (Miles Teller), is the son of his deceased friend Goose and has a very fractured relationship with Bradshaw over their shared past.
With pressure on him from Admiral Simpson (Jon Hamm), Mitchell must somehow find a way to train the group in a small amount of time for what is considered by many to be an impossible mission due to the terrain, defenses, and location of their target.
The film is an edge-of-the-seat adrenaline rush that grabs ahold of you from the start and never lets up. From the opening music to the intense aerial sequences, the audience was hooked as gasps and cheers erupted frequently as the characters and action clearly connected with the audience.
While the visual sequences are nothing short of spectacular, the film is a character-based story and there is a depth to Mitchell and many of the cast that goes much deeper than one would normally see in a summer action film.
Jennifer Connelly offers a great counter-point to Mitchell as a person from his past that has known him through several key moments of his career and helps him endure the turbulent emotions that he has.
From the solid characters and story to the rousing final segments of the movie, “Top Gun: Maverick” returns the Summer Event film in grand style and exceeded my expectations and the original in every way.
Now after decades away and delays due to the pandemic, Cruise has returned to the franchise with “Top Gun: Maverick” and has crafted the rare feat, of a sequel that is not only better than the original but also gives audiences an edge of the seat summer event film when it is needed the most.
Cruise stars as Captain Pete Mitchell who after thirty years is not only haunted by his past but unable to shed his insubordinate and impulsive ways which have kept him from reaching the rank of Admiral and have moved him from one assignment to another.
After his latest action confirms his incredible aviation skills but infuriates the upper brass in the process, Mitchell is out of options as he is unwilling to retire, unable to be promoted, and out of posting options. He is tasked by an old friend with enough clout to watch out for him to return to the Top Gun program as an instructor. Mitchell is hesitant as his last attempt as an instructor did not last long and he believes he is better suited to fly versus teaching.
It is learned that an enemy faction is about to open a Uranium enrichment facility in violation of established law that would threaten the region, and Mitchell is tasked with training a team of Top Gun graduates in three weeks who can make what appears to be a near-impossible assault on the facility to destroy it before it becomes a threat.
While the assembled pilots represent a brash and talented group, Mitchell must contend with the ghosts of his past as one of the members Bradley ‘Rooster’ Bradshaw (Miles Teller), is the son of his deceased friend Goose and has a very fractured relationship with Bradshaw over their shared past.
With pressure on him from Admiral Simpson (Jon Hamm), Mitchell must somehow find a way to train the group in a small amount of time for what is considered by many to be an impossible mission due to the terrain, defenses, and location of their target.
The film is an edge-of-the-seat adrenaline rush that grabs ahold of you from the start and never lets up. From the opening music to the intense aerial sequences, the audience was hooked as gasps and cheers erupted frequently as the characters and action clearly connected with the audience.
While the visual sequences are nothing short of spectacular, the film is a character-based story and there is a depth to Mitchell and many of the cast that goes much deeper than one would normally see in a summer action film.
Jennifer Connelly offers a great counter-point to Mitchell as a person from his past that has known him through several key moments of his career and helps him endure the turbulent emotions that he has.
From the solid characters and story to the rousing final segments of the movie, “Top Gun: Maverick” returns the Summer Event film in grand style and exceeded my expectations and the original in every way.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Jefferson's Treasure: How Albert Gallatin Saved the New Nation from Debt in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Jefferson’s Treasure, by Gregory May, details, “how Albert Gallatin saved the new nation from debt.” Appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to be his Treasury Secretary, Gallatin continued under President Madison, maintaining that position for twelve years. During his tenure, he abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Amity & Sorrow in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
So when I read the blurb about this book, it definitely interested me. I find these kind of cults interesting. Amity & Sorrow: A Novel by Peggy Riley is such a good read when it comes to religious cults and just a great read in general.
Amaranth is on the run from her polygamous, cult leader husband. She's also brought her two children, Amity and Sorrow, with her. When she crashes her car in Oklahoma, she doesn't plan on staying. However, after spending time with Bradley, she wants to stay. Sorrow, her eldest child, wants to go back to her father. Amity just wants to make her sister happy. Sorrow will do anything she can to get back to the compound and her father. Will Amaranth stay with Bradley or will she miss the compound's ways?
The title is pretty straight forward. Amity and Sorrow are the names of the children in this book. I kind of like the title although I think it's not very original.
The cover is simplistic. I was a bit confused though when I started reading the book because the two girls look like adults judging by what their bodies look like. Amity is supposed to be 12 years old, and although Sorrow's age is never revealed, she is referred to as a child. I think the cover would've suited this book better had it looked like a pre-teen and a teenage girl holding hands.
The setting and world building were done beautifully. Everything was written the way I'd think a polygamous cult would be and the how the people in it would act. Riley's portrayal of a woman who escaped from a religious cut is fantastic!
I can not fault the pacing in this book. Not once was I bored when reading Amity & Sorrow: A Novel. Every chapter ending left me wanting more. Every page came alive in my mind for me.
The characters were very well developed and well written. I enjoyed reading about Amity. I loved her innocence and the way she was protective of her sister. I couldn't stand Sorrow, not because she wasn't written well but because I just found her to be so much of a spoiled brat. Amaranth was a great character, and I thought she was a great mother to her children.
Like the pacing, the dialogue is fantastic. The children who were raised in the religious cult speak the way I'd imagine them too. The dialogue between the characters is very interesting. There's no real swear words although there are sexual references.
Amity & Sorrow: A Novel by Peggy Riley is a fantastic read that will leave its readers thinking about it long after they've finished the ending. It is a touching story about love, survival, and the human spirit.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+ due to sexual references and adult themes.
(I received this book for free from the Goodreads Firstreads program).
So when I read the blurb about this book, it definitely interested me. I find these kind of cults interesting. Amity & Sorrow: A Novel by Peggy Riley is such a good read when it comes to religious cults and just a great read in general.
Amaranth is on the run from her polygamous, cult leader husband. She's also brought her two children, Amity and Sorrow, with her. When she crashes her car in Oklahoma, she doesn't plan on staying. However, after spending time with Bradley, she wants to stay. Sorrow, her eldest child, wants to go back to her father. Amity just wants to make her sister happy. Sorrow will do anything she can to get back to the compound and her father. Will Amaranth stay with Bradley or will she miss the compound's ways?
The title is pretty straight forward. Amity and Sorrow are the names of the children in this book. I kind of like the title although I think it's not very original.
The cover is simplistic. I was a bit confused though when I started reading the book because the two girls look like adults judging by what their bodies look like. Amity is supposed to be 12 years old, and although Sorrow's age is never revealed, she is referred to as a child. I think the cover would've suited this book better had it looked like a pre-teen and a teenage girl holding hands.
The setting and world building were done beautifully. Everything was written the way I'd think a polygamous cult would be and the how the people in it would act. Riley's portrayal of a woman who escaped from a religious cut is fantastic!
I can not fault the pacing in this book. Not once was I bored when reading Amity & Sorrow: A Novel. Every chapter ending left me wanting more. Every page came alive in my mind for me.
The characters were very well developed and well written. I enjoyed reading about Amity. I loved her innocence and the way she was protective of her sister. I couldn't stand Sorrow, not because she wasn't written well but because I just found her to be so much of a spoiled brat. Amaranth was a great character, and I thought she was a great mother to her children.
Like the pacing, the dialogue is fantastic. The children who were raised in the religious cult speak the way I'd imagine them too. The dialogue between the characters is very interesting. There's no real swear words although there are sexual references.
Amity & Sorrow: A Novel by Peggy Riley is a fantastic read that will leave its readers thinking about it long after they've finished the ending. It is a touching story about love, survival, and the human spirit.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+ due to sexual references and adult themes.
(I received this book for free from the Goodreads Firstreads program).
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated All-New Wolverine, Volume 5: Orphans of X in Books
Nov 30, 2020
<b>**</b> <i>Before I begin, I should just like to preface this review with the following disclaimer: any reviews I have written are almost always going to be less than biased, due to the content being related to Laura Kinney (X-23). However, that being said, if the story is rubbish, and Laura is in it, I will still be honest in my review. Now, on to the review.. </i><b>**</b>
ORPHANS OF X was the perfect story arc to wash away the taste from the two previous arcs - "Enemy of the State II" and "Immune". From the beginning to the end, this was a solid story! There was action, there was suspenseful tension, and, of course, there was humor along the way (Thanks in part to Gabby, or as she is known by her new codename: Honey Badger!). A winning recipe for how to write a comic book successfully!
Under writer Tom Taylor's hand, Laura has evolved as a character. Yes, she was a former assassin. Yes, she killed a hell of a lot of people during her time when she was part of the Facility's Weapon X Program. However, that doesn't mean you can't a) move beyond that, nor b) can you just forget that. And that is what Taylor has done.
Laura has grown, taking on the responsibility of looking out for/"raising" her sister/clone Gabby. She displays more emotions, not 100% perfect, but considering her backstory, it makes sense the way she is being written.
No spoilers, promise, but the ending resolution to ORPHANS OF X sets in motion great potential! We know the next arc will be "Old Woman Laura", but after that? Oh, wait 'til you read it, and if you are a fan of the character, you should be as excite as I am!
And, as praiseworthy as Tom Taylor's writing was, I feel I should also gave a more than fair nod to new series artist (I hope!) Juann Cabal. A lot of talent, and definitely someone this book could use! Cabal's pencils are tight, yet fluid. He brings a lot of action to a fight panel, yet also brings a careful attention to facial detail when it is a simpler, not action-y scene.
Oh, of course, there were also some amazing (as always) covers by fan favorite Terry Dodson! Brilliant!!
Many of us, fans of Laura Kinney, have been hankering for a story like this. Everything about it was all aces! But, don't let me be the final word on this. By all means, good folk, read on..
ORPHANS OF X was the perfect story arc to wash away the taste from the two previous arcs - "Enemy of the State II" and "Immune". From the beginning to the end, this was a solid story! There was action, there was suspenseful tension, and, of course, there was humor along the way (Thanks in part to Gabby, or as she is known by her new codename: Honey Badger!). A winning recipe for how to write a comic book successfully!
Under writer Tom Taylor's hand, Laura has evolved as a character. Yes, she was a former assassin. Yes, she killed a hell of a lot of people during her time when she was part of the Facility's Weapon X Program. However, that doesn't mean you can't a) move beyond that, nor b) can you just forget that. And that is what Taylor has done.
Laura has grown, taking on the responsibility of looking out for/"raising" her sister/clone Gabby. She displays more emotions, not 100% perfect, but considering her backstory, it makes sense the way she is being written.
No spoilers, promise, but the ending resolution to ORPHANS OF X sets in motion great potential! We know the next arc will be "Old Woman Laura", but after that? Oh, wait 'til you read it, and if you are a fan of the character, you should be as excite as I am!
And, as praiseworthy as Tom Taylor's writing was, I feel I should also gave a more than fair nod to new series artist (I hope!) Juann Cabal. A lot of talent, and definitely someone this book could use! Cabal's pencils are tight, yet fluid. He brings a lot of action to a fight panel, yet also brings a careful attention to facial detail when it is a simpler, not action-y scene.
Oh, of course, there were also some amazing (as always) covers by fan favorite Terry Dodson! Brilliant!!
Many of us, fans of Laura Kinney, have been hankering for a story like this. Everything about it was all aces! But, don't let me be the final word on this. By all means, good folk, read on..
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Girl You Left Behind in Books
Jun 6, 2018
This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I won this book through the first reads Goodreads program. It's not normally the type of book that would catch my attention attention based on the synopsis, but I'm always willing to read something out of my comfort zone. I'm more than glad that I read this book as I loved it!!
Sophie is a French woman in German occupied France during World War I. She and the Kommandent become close only because Sophie will do whatever it takes to see her husband who has been sent to a German work camp. Fast forward almost a century later...Liv is a woman that has a portrait that was painted by Sophie's husband years ago. The relatives of Sophie's husband want that painting back simply because they know how much it's worth. However, for Liv, the painting means so much more. This is the story of a painting and how two women from different centuries are so much alike.
I loved the character of Sophie. She was definitely a strong and brave character. I felt what she was feeling a majority of the time. She went through so much to get what she loved. I also loved Liv, who, like Sophie was willing to lose it all to get what she loved. Mo was another one of my favourite characters. She brought in the comic timing. Her humour was fantastic, and it wasn't over the top. It was just right for the mood of the story. I loved Paul. He was such a sweetheart! I wish my husband was as kind and romantic as Paul! It was lovely to see him grow as a character.
The title definitely suits the book as The Girl You Left Behind is what they painting is called, and much of the story centres around this painting. I don't think there could've been a better title for this book.
The cover is very beautiful, and while it does relate to the story somewhat, I just wish the cover could've been the painting of Sophie that was talked about so much throughout the book. I would've loved to see what the painting actually looked like.
The setting and world building were fab as well! I loved how a lot of this book was set in a little hotel in a French city. The author made the hotel sound so warm and welcoming. It was obvious that the author did a lot of research about World War I when it came to the Germans occupy French cities. The descriptions of every place mentioned in the book were well written.
The pacing was absolutely fantastic! Each page kept me enthralled. I did not want to put down this book for anything!
I also loved the ending of the book. It was well written and didn't feel rushed like a lot of books do when they end. I thought it was a fantastic ending to a well written book.
I would definitely recommend this book to everyone 16 and over. It's a little gem of a book, and it really took me by surprise.
I won this book through the first reads Goodreads program. It's not normally the type of book that would catch my attention attention based on the synopsis, but I'm always willing to read something out of my comfort zone. I'm more than glad that I read this book as I loved it!!
Sophie is a French woman in German occupied France during World War I. She and the Kommandent become close only because Sophie will do whatever it takes to see her husband who has been sent to a German work camp. Fast forward almost a century later...Liv is a woman that has a portrait that was painted by Sophie's husband years ago. The relatives of Sophie's husband want that painting back simply because they know how much it's worth. However, for Liv, the painting means so much more. This is the story of a painting and how two women from different centuries are so much alike.
I loved the character of Sophie. She was definitely a strong and brave character. I felt what she was feeling a majority of the time. She went through so much to get what she loved. I also loved Liv, who, like Sophie was willing to lose it all to get what she loved. Mo was another one of my favourite characters. She brought in the comic timing. Her humour was fantastic, and it wasn't over the top. It was just right for the mood of the story. I loved Paul. He was such a sweetheart! I wish my husband was as kind and romantic as Paul! It was lovely to see him grow as a character.
The title definitely suits the book as The Girl You Left Behind is what they painting is called, and much of the story centres around this painting. I don't think there could've been a better title for this book.
The cover is very beautiful, and while it does relate to the story somewhat, I just wish the cover could've been the painting of Sophie that was talked about so much throughout the book. I would've loved to see what the painting actually looked like.
The setting and world building were fab as well! I loved how a lot of this book was set in a little hotel in a French city. The author made the hotel sound so warm and welcoming. It was obvious that the author did a lot of research about World War I when it came to the Germans occupy French cities. The descriptions of every place mentioned in the book were well written.
The pacing was absolutely fantastic! Each page kept me enthralled. I did not want to put down this book for anything!
I also loved the ending of the book. It was well written and didn't feel rushed like a lot of books do when they end. I thought it was a fantastic ending to a well written book.
I would definitely recommend this book to everyone 16 and over. It's a little gem of a book, and it really took me by surprise.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
All I'd been hearing about Parasite was that it was a masterpiece and amazing, so many people were getting to see previews but of course they were all in London. Then Odeon came to the rescue with their Screen Unseen program so I defected from Cineworld for an evening.
The Kim family are desperately trying to make ends meet, their cramped home is uncomfortable and located in one of the shabbiest districts of Seoul. Things take a turn when the son's friend suggests that he takes over his tutoring job for the daughter of a well off family. Ki-woo doesn't have the qualifications but all he needs is to show confidence, he decides to take the job.
Once he gets to the upscale house opportunities start to present themselves and he sees a chance to set his family up with jobs too. Bringing their mother onboard sets in motion something that no one could have seen coming.
I seriously considered not writing a review for this, please excuse me if it seems a little disjointed but I'm still not entirely convinced that I have a proper conclusion.
Coming out of the film I was a little confused, mainly because apart from hearing about it being a masterpiece I had seen people saying it was a horror... IMDb lists it as "comedy, crime, drama", at least I agree with one of those.
The contrast between rich and poor is shown perfectly throughout, from their homes to the human senses expressed, the way it's all represented on screen solidifies the differences between the two families.
In each home environment we also see it, the sleek versus the chaotic, the clean versus the dirty. The Park's designer home is white, open and ordered, the Kim's is claustrophobic, cluttered and busy. The two are illustrated perfectly on each end of the spectrum and the two overlap briefly when the Kim's briefly take over the Park's home.
I thought the acting was good but I wasn't blown away by anything, potentially more of an issue with the script for me as I wasn't keen on some of the character traits that came out. The divide between the two families is obviously something that carries through to their members, but whereas we might expect the rich to be the villains in a story (and yes, they aren't necessarily the best people in the world) it is in fact the poor that are verging on the bad side of things. It does appear that in this instance money is the corrupting influence on the Kims and they get the taste for the high life. All the actors involved are very strong in helping this come across to the audience.
Beyond this set up I wasn't left with the gushing feeling that many, MANY others were. Maybe this just went over my head, I'm the first to admit that when I go to a movie I turn my brain down. Maybe it was more thinking than I'm willing to put into a film. When films touch a lot of different genres I feel like I have some trouble with then so this could also contribute to my underwhelmed feeling. My instinct coming out was that I wanted it to be a little darker and closer to a thriller than just drama.
After one viewing I would say I wouldn't have chosen to see it again but there's an Unlimited Screening coming I feel like it's worth giving it a second viewing in case I see something I didn't see before, but I'm not sure how much it will change things.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/parasite-movie-review.html
The Kim family are desperately trying to make ends meet, their cramped home is uncomfortable and located in one of the shabbiest districts of Seoul. Things take a turn when the son's friend suggests that he takes over his tutoring job for the daughter of a well off family. Ki-woo doesn't have the qualifications but all he needs is to show confidence, he decides to take the job.
Once he gets to the upscale house opportunities start to present themselves and he sees a chance to set his family up with jobs too. Bringing their mother onboard sets in motion something that no one could have seen coming.
I seriously considered not writing a review for this, please excuse me if it seems a little disjointed but I'm still not entirely convinced that I have a proper conclusion.
Coming out of the film I was a little confused, mainly because apart from hearing about it being a masterpiece I had seen people saying it was a horror... IMDb lists it as "comedy, crime, drama", at least I agree with one of those.
The contrast between rich and poor is shown perfectly throughout, from their homes to the human senses expressed, the way it's all represented on screen solidifies the differences between the two families.
In each home environment we also see it, the sleek versus the chaotic, the clean versus the dirty. The Park's designer home is white, open and ordered, the Kim's is claustrophobic, cluttered and busy. The two are illustrated perfectly on each end of the spectrum and the two overlap briefly when the Kim's briefly take over the Park's home.
I thought the acting was good but I wasn't blown away by anything, potentially more of an issue with the script for me as I wasn't keen on some of the character traits that came out. The divide between the two families is obviously something that carries through to their members, but whereas we might expect the rich to be the villains in a story (and yes, they aren't necessarily the best people in the world) it is in fact the poor that are verging on the bad side of things. It does appear that in this instance money is the corrupting influence on the Kims and they get the taste for the high life. All the actors involved are very strong in helping this come across to the audience.
Beyond this set up I wasn't left with the gushing feeling that many, MANY others were. Maybe this just went over my head, I'm the first to admit that when I go to a movie I turn my brain down. Maybe it was more thinking than I'm willing to put into a film. When films touch a lot of different genres I feel like I have some trouble with then so this could also contribute to my underwhelmed feeling. My instinct coming out was that I wanted it to be a little darker and closer to a thriller than just drama.
After one viewing I would say I wouldn't have chosen to see it again but there's an Unlimited Screening coming I feel like it's worth giving it a second viewing in case I see something I didn't see before, but I'm not sure how much it will change things.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/parasite-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
20th Century Fox releases Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul. Starring a new cast, as the previous cast ember kids aged out of their roles, it has Alecia Silverstone as Mom, Tom Everett Scott as Dad, Jason Drucker as Wimpy Kid Greg, and Charlie Wright as older brother Roderick.
Headed cross country to their MeeMaw’s 90th birthday, it’s a 4-day haul to Indiana, and Mom has banned all electronic devices.
At least from an adult perspective, I can understand the premise, seeing as the kids are always up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft these days, and having a “conversation” can be like pulling teeth. However, again from an adult perspective, this movie might have been better if the characters HAD been up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft for the trip.
There was lots of bathroom humor, which did seem to pull some laughs from my 8-year-old son, although maybe not as many as might have been expected (some of it, thankfully, was still over his head), but just had me shaking my head and wondering what has happened to good clean humor?
Greg’s main goal throughout the Long Haul is trying to erase or at least overcome his accidental internet sensationalism caught when he is filmed freaking out over a diaper he finds while playing in a ball-pit. He continues to try to re-route the family trip in order to get himself into a video with (what he sees as) a “famous” gamer who goes by Mac Digby, who will be at a convention in Indiana “only two inches away” from MeeMaw’s when looking at the map. His brother Roderick wants to become famous by drumming along in a video game and Greg manages to re-program the GPS in order to direct them closer to the gaming convention.
Along the way, they stop at a county fair and the youngest Heffley, Manny (played by twins Dylan and Wyatt Walters) manages to win an adorable baby piglet, who might honestly have the best role in the film. Who doesn’t like baby pigs?
There are more hijinks along the way in some sort of feud with another family, and in what might be the best part of the film, an homage to Hitchcock’s “Psycho”.
All in all, though, something is seriously lost in translation between the popular Jeff Kinney kids novel that the movie is based on, and this film. Previous installments of the Wimpy Kid movies have not been nearly as unpalatable to me. My son says that he likes this one, but even he says, “the book was better” and he’s only 8.
Between the poop, pee and puke “humor” and the never addressed or resolved lying of the kids and even dad, it’s not a movie I could really appreciate.
Headed cross country to their MeeMaw’s 90th birthday, it’s a 4-day haul to Indiana, and Mom has banned all electronic devices.
At least from an adult perspective, I can understand the premise, seeing as the kids are always up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft these days, and having a “conversation” can be like pulling teeth. However, again from an adult perspective, this movie might have been better if the characters HAD been up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft for the trip.
There was lots of bathroom humor, which did seem to pull some laughs from my 8-year-old son, although maybe not as many as might have been expected (some of it, thankfully, was still over his head), but just had me shaking my head and wondering what has happened to good clean humor?
Greg’s main goal throughout the Long Haul is trying to erase or at least overcome his accidental internet sensationalism caught when he is filmed freaking out over a diaper he finds while playing in a ball-pit. He continues to try to re-route the family trip in order to get himself into a video with (what he sees as) a “famous” gamer who goes by Mac Digby, who will be at a convention in Indiana “only two inches away” from MeeMaw’s when looking at the map. His brother Roderick wants to become famous by drumming along in a video game and Greg manages to re-program the GPS in order to direct them closer to the gaming convention.
Along the way, they stop at a county fair and the youngest Heffley, Manny (played by twins Dylan and Wyatt Walters) manages to win an adorable baby piglet, who might honestly have the best role in the film. Who doesn’t like baby pigs?
There are more hijinks along the way in some sort of feud with another family, and in what might be the best part of the film, an homage to Hitchcock’s “Psycho”.
All in all, though, something is seriously lost in translation between the popular Jeff Kinney kids novel that the movie is based on, and this film. Previous installments of the Wimpy Kid movies have not been nearly as unpalatable to me. My son says that he likes this one, but even he says, “the book was better” and he’s only 8.
Between the poop, pee and puke “humor” and the never addressed or resolved lying of the kids and even dad, it’s not a movie I could really appreciate.