Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Paranormalcy (Paranormalcy #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2012/12/review-paranormalcy-by-kiersten-white.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>.
I'll be honest here: I just adore Evie's personality. And her habit of "bleep" when swearing which she picked up from her watery friend, Lish (such a sad ending for her. Dx *tears up again*). I'll probably face it. I kinda got the bleep habit as well after reading it, LOL. Not that I swear much myself. I kinda use it for fun sometimes when it's appropriate (Read: Really Fun Word to Use When Right).
Did it make a lasting impression? Well...
In the majority of cases, yep, it certainly did. In the meaning of "Will-I-read-it-again-and-again-so-I-can-visit-again" type of thing, it would be an eh... I guess we'll have to see. There's this great perk about the Paranormal genre, but I thought in Paranormalcy's case, it wasn't a lot as I expected it, but overall, it was pretty good.
The title is really catchy and makes you think a bit on what it really means. Though I don't really see how it's related in a way to the story. Maybe it'll come to me later. I hope. (That's right. I still haven't figured it out, XD) Same for the cover in a way. Although... I guess I can. The story is related to Evie after all. I'm assuming the girl on the cover is Evie. No guarantees of being right. I'm just guessing. (And guessing is never wrong. Is it? O_O)
How about the others then? I can't really detect the villains though. There seems to be a few, of which I shall not name for the sake of spoilers. Plus, they're not that scary. I was thinking some creep that would try and steal your soul to live like the villain from Silver Phoenix (read it BEFORE Bookwyrming Thoughts was born, so no review anywhere.) And I despise Reth. Can't you see Evie wants no business with you whatsoever? Dx I guess faeries aren't always smart as mentioned probably in the book already.
But oy, what makes me give it an epic rating of 4.25? Okay, not a 4.25 then. A 4. Not dealing with graphics again... even though I enjoy doing it at times. :) What really makes me give it a high rating and not a "in-the-middle-due-to-a-bit-of-lack-of-action-because-I'm-also-drawn-to-action-and-adventure-books-mixed-in-with-other-genres" type of rating is White's writing style. I just love it. It's light-hearted, kind of care-free, humorous, and cute mixed with awesome-ness and totally fun voice.
Will I read the next book? Yep. Just please keep up the awesomous style. I just adore it (Read: LOVEEE it!). :3
I'll be honest here: I just adore Evie's personality. And her habit of "bleep" when swearing which she picked up from her watery friend, Lish (such a sad ending for her. Dx *tears up again*). I'll probably face it. I kinda got the bleep habit as well after reading it, LOL. Not that I swear much myself. I kinda use it for fun sometimes when it's appropriate (Read: Really Fun Word to Use When Right).
Did it make a lasting impression? Well...
In the majority of cases, yep, it certainly did. In the meaning of "Will-I-read-it-again-and-again-so-I-can-visit-again" type of thing, it would be an eh... I guess we'll have to see. There's this great perk about the Paranormal genre, but I thought in Paranormalcy's case, it wasn't a lot as I expected it, but overall, it was pretty good.
The title is really catchy and makes you think a bit on what it really means. Though I don't really see how it's related in a way to the story. Maybe it'll come to me later. I hope. (That's right. I still haven't figured it out, XD) Same for the cover in a way. Although... I guess I can. The story is related to Evie after all. I'm assuming the girl on the cover is Evie. No guarantees of being right. I'm just guessing. (And guessing is never wrong. Is it? O_O)
How about the others then? I can't really detect the villains though. There seems to be a few, of which I shall not name for the sake of spoilers. Plus, they're not that scary. I was thinking some creep that would try and steal your soul to live like the villain from Silver Phoenix (read it BEFORE Bookwyrming Thoughts was born, so no review anywhere.) And I despise Reth. Can't you see Evie wants no business with you whatsoever? Dx I guess faeries aren't always smart as mentioned probably in the book already.
But oy, what makes me give it an epic rating of 4.25? Okay, not a 4.25 then. A 4. Not dealing with graphics again... even though I enjoy doing it at times. :) What really makes me give it a high rating and not a "in-the-middle-due-to-a-bit-of-lack-of-action-because-I'm-also-drawn-to-action-and-adventure-books-mixed-in-with-other-genres" type of rating is White's writing style. I just love it. It's light-hearted, kind of care-free, humorous, and cute mixed with awesome-ness and totally fun voice.
Will I read the next book? Yep. Just please keep up the awesomous style. I just adore it (Read: LOVEEE it!). :3
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
About 85% of this reboot of the popular 90s show Power Rangers is quite a broody and charming enough story about a group of five (mostly outcast) teenagers finding a bond and friendship after discovering that they've be given superpowers. This is spliced with the odd training montage of them all learning how to harness their new found powers.
It pretty straightforward, and thanks the main cast, it's fairly enjoyable.
Lead by Jason (Stranger Things' Dacre Montgomery), the five friends are probably the main positive about the film.
As the movie draws on, we are teased with just enough Power Rangers material to keep the intrigue afloat - the presence of Zordon (Bryan Cranston), Alpha 5 (Bill Hader) and Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), glimpses of the Zords and so on, but the narrative never strays too far from this core theme of strength through friendship.
That is until the final act of course...
I'll admit that I felt a swelling of excitement when the Power Rangers finally appeared in full armour, kicking the shit out of faceless CGI henchman, but it's at this point that director Dean Israelite goes FULL POWER RANGERS. We even get the classic theme tune as the Rangers charge towards Goldar (eye burning CGI, but kind of cool) and Rita in their Zords (also kind of cool) but here in lies the main problem with the film as a whole.
The nostalgia is laid on so thick that it feels like a completely different film. With the first 3/4 being somewhat grounded in realism (sort of), with serious themes and relatable human characters, the final act of flat out Power Rangers absurdity doesn't quite gel. I have no problem with either approach, but I feel like maybe the writers should have picked one and stuck with it.
The well developed teenagers that we've spent and hour and half with at this point are suddenly wise cracking and quipping like there's no tomorrow. The big climatic battle looks ok, but it has that really overplayed Kanye West song obnoxiously blasting throughout (which just gave me *shudder* Suicide Squad vibes), and after being built up to be a genuinely threatening villain, Rita is easily dispatched by a big CGI bitchslap into CGI space, by the big CGI hand of the big CGI Megazord (still kind of cool).
It's just a little meh.
I have fond memories of Power Rangers from my childhood, and I realise that this modern retelling is also aimed at a younger audience, and in that respect I'm sure it's very entertaining, and I give credit to the writers for touching upon more adult issues, but overall, I wish it had been better. Power Rangers is silly, but it does genuinely have scope to be an epic franchise.
Final note - the running Krispy Kreme joke got old very quickly đź–•
It pretty straightforward, and thanks the main cast, it's fairly enjoyable.
Lead by Jason (Stranger Things' Dacre Montgomery), the five friends are probably the main positive about the film.
As the movie draws on, we are teased with just enough Power Rangers material to keep the intrigue afloat - the presence of Zordon (Bryan Cranston), Alpha 5 (Bill Hader) and Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), glimpses of the Zords and so on, but the narrative never strays too far from this core theme of strength through friendship.
That is until the final act of course...
I'll admit that I felt a swelling of excitement when the Power Rangers finally appeared in full armour, kicking the shit out of faceless CGI henchman, but it's at this point that director Dean Israelite goes FULL POWER RANGERS. We even get the classic theme tune as the Rangers charge towards Goldar (eye burning CGI, but kind of cool) and Rita in their Zords (also kind of cool) but here in lies the main problem with the film as a whole.
The nostalgia is laid on so thick that it feels like a completely different film. With the first 3/4 being somewhat grounded in realism (sort of), with serious themes and relatable human characters, the final act of flat out Power Rangers absurdity doesn't quite gel. I have no problem with either approach, but I feel like maybe the writers should have picked one and stuck with it.
The well developed teenagers that we've spent and hour and half with at this point are suddenly wise cracking and quipping like there's no tomorrow. The big climatic battle looks ok, but it has that really overplayed Kanye West song obnoxiously blasting throughout (which just gave me *shudder* Suicide Squad vibes), and after being built up to be a genuinely threatening villain, Rita is easily dispatched by a big CGI bitchslap into CGI space, by the big CGI hand of the big CGI Megazord (still kind of cool).
It's just a little meh.
I have fond memories of Power Rangers from my childhood, and I realise that this modern retelling is also aimed at a younger audience, and in that respect I'm sure it's very entertaining, and I give credit to the writers for touching upon more adult issues, but overall, I wish it had been better. Power Rangers is silly, but it does genuinely have scope to be an epic franchise.
Final note - the running Krispy Kreme joke got old very quickly đź–•
JT (287 KP) rated The Hunt (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
The Hunt is a gripping yet dramatic look at the persecution of one man in a small Danish town, after he is accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.
With such subject matter being so delicate it needed a careful approach as its something that is so true to life it can resonate with peoples moral views in quite a significant way. Lucas (Mikkelsen) is a nursery teacher, quiet and reclusive he lives alone trying to come to terms with the fact that he is not able to see his son as much as he would like to.
Lucas clearly has a fond affection for the children that he looks after, but his life is torn apart one day by a small white lie that sets the wheels in motion for a real life witch hunt.
The film is hard to watch at times and rightly so, it’s dealing with something that occurs in the real world and it can be stomach churning. But director Thomas Vinterberg gets to the heart of the matter quickly and in such a way that it creates compelling interest.
Former Bond villain and TV Hannibal star Mikkelsen is an exceptional centre piece as a loving father desperate for a way out, and in such a small environment it seems to be a hard task to accomplish. It’s at times like this that you know who your real friends are, and Lucas comes to realise that in the harshest of circumstances as he is slowly but surely chased down by a hunting pack of townsfolk.
How apt it is that Mikkelsen seen hunting deer in the forest at the start, now knows himself what that feeling is like as the hunter now becomes the hunted. It’s a film that genuinely makes you angry, your emotions are pulled one way and then the next as you try to put yourself in the shoes of a number of different people, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, guilty until proven innocent.
At the start we’re quite sure that Lucas is innocent, but there is enough in the narrative that at times we question ourselves in what is a slow burning story executed with the highest precision. The supporting cast are all brilliant, and do themselves credit to subject matter that must be hard to act against, especially when there are children involved.
People will do evil things when pushed to the limit by what they feel is right or wrong as the case maybe, and its a journey that Vinterberg takes us on in horrifying consequences.
The Hunt expels emotions such as paranoia, guilt and suspicion, all in a community bonded closely by long lasting friendships they have with each other. The closing scene proves that even after time has passed some things are gone but certainly not forgotten.
With such subject matter being so delicate it needed a careful approach as its something that is so true to life it can resonate with peoples moral views in quite a significant way. Lucas (Mikkelsen) is a nursery teacher, quiet and reclusive he lives alone trying to come to terms with the fact that he is not able to see his son as much as he would like to.
Lucas clearly has a fond affection for the children that he looks after, but his life is torn apart one day by a small white lie that sets the wheels in motion for a real life witch hunt.
The film is hard to watch at times and rightly so, it’s dealing with something that occurs in the real world and it can be stomach churning. But director Thomas Vinterberg gets to the heart of the matter quickly and in such a way that it creates compelling interest.
Former Bond villain and TV Hannibal star Mikkelsen is an exceptional centre piece as a loving father desperate for a way out, and in such a small environment it seems to be a hard task to accomplish. It’s at times like this that you know who your real friends are, and Lucas comes to realise that in the harshest of circumstances as he is slowly but surely chased down by a hunting pack of townsfolk.
How apt it is that Mikkelsen seen hunting deer in the forest at the start, now knows himself what that feeling is like as the hunter now becomes the hunted. It’s a film that genuinely makes you angry, your emotions are pulled one way and then the next as you try to put yourself in the shoes of a number of different people, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, guilty until proven innocent.
At the start we’re quite sure that Lucas is innocent, but there is enough in the narrative that at times we question ourselves in what is a slow burning story executed with the highest precision. The supporting cast are all brilliant, and do themselves credit to subject matter that must be hard to act against, especially when there are children involved.
People will do evil things when pushed to the limit by what they feel is right or wrong as the case maybe, and its a journey that Vinterberg takes us on in horrifying consequences.
The Hunt expels emotions such as paranoia, guilt and suspicion, all in a community bonded closely by long lasting friendships they have with each other. The closing scene proves that even after time has passed some things are gone but certainly not forgotten.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
did i speak too soon?
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you've read my other reviews, you know that I'm currently in a Hitchcock film class. I've been dreading watching his films because of the ones I've seen, with the exception of Psycho, have been the same story told in different ways. I was equally as dreadful when it came to watching this film. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Once You Go This Far in Books
Jul 9, 2020
Probably my favorite book in the series and that's saying *a lot.*
Private investigator Roxane Weary is out for a stroll when another hiker, Rebecca Newsome, falls to her death on a nearby trail. Her daughter, Maggie, doesn't think it was an accident, and she hires Roxane to look into the the incident, believing strongly that Rebecca's ex-husband, Keir, a former cop, was responsible. Roxane learns quickly that Keir is a bit of a jerk, but did he kill his ex? Roxane soon finds herself driving between Detroit and Canada, following the path of Rebecca's last days. Soon she's embroiled in the Fellowship, a mega-church founded by Joel Creedle and talking to Constance Archer, a wealthy businesswoman who is now running for office. Roxane's running herself so ragged she can barely make time for herself, let alone Tom, her sometimes romantic interest. Not to mention, things are heating up in her case, and she may find herself in danger, yet again.
"Only bad things happened when it was cold out, as it was becoming now."
This is one of the best detective serious out there, hands down, and I wish that Kristen Lepionka and Roxane Weary were household names. I adore these books and this one may be my favorite yet, which is high praise, as I've loved every book since the first.
"That was the thing about mysteries--no one ever deviated from the routine until the moment they did."
Roxane is her own person--a witty, intelligent private investigator who, oh yeah, just happens to be bisexual (and not a side character or the villain of our tale). Book four finds her working on a perplexing case, but also dealing with some personal growth: having to confront emotions and relationships, dreaded words in Roxane's world. I loved the balance of the mystery and Roxane's personal life in this one.
"Not knowing was hard for me. It always was."
Reading these books is like falling back with familiar friends--Lepionka captures Roxane and her crew perfectly: her brothers and mom; her on again/off again boyfriend Tom and ex-girlfriend, Catherine; her work partners; and more. She expertly portrays Roxane's wonderful sarcasm and her inability to commit. Here, we see Roxane dealing with a bombshell about her father's past--poor Roxane: she can never quite escape the shadow of her father, a former cop.
But, of course, we also read for the mystery, and this is a great one--Lepionka takes us in the world of an Evangelical church while delving into Rebecca Newsome's past, her relationship with her daughter, Maggie, and the many secrets Roxane uncovers. She also throws in Rebecca's wonderful spunky elderly neighbor who keeps things lively. This was an excellent mystery that kept me guessing (and worrying for Roxane's safety)--it's timely, interesting, and suspenseful.
Highly recommend this book and the entire Roxane Weary series. 4.5 stars.
Private investigator Roxane Weary is out for a stroll when another hiker, Rebecca Newsome, falls to her death on a nearby trail. Her daughter, Maggie, doesn't think it was an accident, and she hires Roxane to look into the the incident, believing strongly that Rebecca's ex-husband, Keir, a former cop, was responsible. Roxane learns quickly that Keir is a bit of a jerk, but did he kill his ex? Roxane soon finds herself driving between Detroit and Canada, following the path of Rebecca's last days. Soon she's embroiled in the Fellowship, a mega-church founded by Joel Creedle and talking to Constance Archer, a wealthy businesswoman who is now running for office. Roxane's running herself so ragged she can barely make time for herself, let alone Tom, her sometimes romantic interest. Not to mention, things are heating up in her case, and she may find herself in danger, yet again.
"Only bad things happened when it was cold out, as it was becoming now."
This is one of the best detective serious out there, hands down, and I wish that Kristen Lepionka and Roxane Weary were household names. I adore these books and this one may be my favorite yet, which is high praise, as I've loved every book since the first.
"That was the thing about mysteries--no one ever deviated from the routine until the moment they did."
Roxane is her own person--a witty, intelligent private investigator who, oh yeah, just happens to be bisexual (and not a side character or the villain of our tale). Book four finds her working on a perplexing case, but also dealing with some personal growth: having to confront emotions and relationships, dreaded words in Roxane's world. I loved the balance of the mystery and Roxane's personal life in this one.
"Not knowing was hard for me. It always was."
Reading these books is like falling back with familiar friends--Lepionka captures Roxane and her crew perfectly: her brothers and mom; her on again/off again boyfriend Tom and ex-girlfriend, Catherine; her work partners; and more. She expertly portrays Roxane's wonderful sarcasm and her inability to commit. Here, we see Roxane dealing with a bombshell about her father's past--poor Roxane: she can never quite escape the shadow of her father, a former cop.
But, of course, we also read for the mystery, and this is a great one--Lepionka takes us in the world of an Evangelical church while delving into Rebecca Newsome's past, her relationship with her daughter, Maggie, and the many secrets Roxane uncovers. She also throws in Rebecca's wonderful spunky elderly neighbor who keeps things lively. This was an excellent mystery that kept me guessing (and worrying for Roxane's safety)--it's timely, interesting, and suspenseful.
Highly recommend this book and the entire Roxane Weary series. 4.5 stars.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 30, 2021
The Last 45 minutes (out of 4 hours) is decent
When Zach Snyder was filming JUSTICE LEAGUE in 2016, a tragedy occurred in his family and he was forced to drop out and the job of Directing that film went to Joss Whedon (THE AVENGERS). This version of the film was met by many (including me) with a collective “meh”, it was an unintelligible mess of a movie that paid lip service to fan boys (maybe) and gave very little to anyone not well versed in all things DC Comics. Many, many fans assumed that there was much left on the cutting room floor (or not filmed at all) that would correct the many mistakes of this film.
After a large outcry to “Restore The Snyder Cut”, Warner Brothers and HBO Max gave the fans what they wanted - a 4 hour redone version of this film that was intended to clear up the many, many confusing moments of the first film.
And that is EXACTLY what has happened. Zach Snyder has created a film that is very long on explanation and exposition - exactly what the fanboys wanted. What it didn’t do was to clear up the mess that is the plot, pacing and characters of this film.
ZACH SNYDER’S JUSTICE LEAGUE unites many of the great SuperHeroes of DC Comics - Superman (Henry Cavill), Batman (Ben Affleck), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) - to fight an intergalactic villain.
So..how many of those heroes are you anxious to see on screen together and really dive deep into their backstories and motivations? If you said The Flash and Cyborg - then this is the film for you for Snyder really delves deeply into these 2 characters.
Unfortunately, what this has done is to push the heroes that the “average Joe” knows and loves - Batman, WonderWoman and Aquaman - to the background and, most damning of all, relinquished Superman to an extended cameo. He also throws almost every DC Character that has appeared in a previous film in - most really quickly. So, thanks for stopping by the party Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Commissioner Gordon (J.K. Simmons), Vulko (Willem Dafoe), Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg), Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Martha Kent (Diane Lane), Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and Mira (Amber Heard). If I blinked I would have missed you.
To be fair, the last 45 minutes of this film are really interesting (including an Epilogue that sets up a sequel that we’ll never see), but in order to get there, you need to slog through 3 hours and 15 minutes of this disjointed film.
Worth the effort for the “Fanboys” and “Hardcores”, not worth the effort for the “Average Joe”.
Letter Grade: B (I really, really liked the Epilogue)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
After a large outcry to “Restore The Snyder Cut”, Warner Brothers and HBO Max gave the fans what they wanted - a 4 hour redone version of this film that was intended to clear up the many, many confusing moments of the first film.
And that is EXACTLY what has happened. Zach Snyder has created a film that is very long on explanation and exposition - exactly what the fanboys wanted. What it didn’t do was to clear up the mess that is the plot, pacing and characters of this film.
ZACH SNYDER’S JUSTICE LEAGUE unites many of the great SuperHeroes of DC Comics - Superman (Henry Cavill), Batman (Ben Affleck), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) - to fight an intergalactic villain.
So..how many of those heroes are you anxious to see on screen together and really dive deep into their backstories and motivations? If you said The Flash and Cyborg - then this is the film for you for Snyder really delves deeply into these 2 characters.
Unfortunately, what this has done is to push the heroes that the “average Joe” knows and loves - Batman, WonderWoman and Aquaman - to the background and, most damning of all, relinquished Superman to an extended cameo. He also throws almost every DC Character that has appeared in a previous film in - most really quickly. So, thanks for stopping by the party Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Commissioner Gordon (J.K. Simmons), Vulko (Willem Dafoe), Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg), Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Martha Kent (Diane Lane), Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and Mira (Amber Heard). If I blinked I would have missed you.
To be fair, the last 45 minutes of this film are really interesting (including an Epilogue that sets up a sequel that we’ll never see), but in order to get there, you need to slog through 3 hours and 15 minutes of this disjointed film.
Worth the effort for the “Fanboys” and “Hardcores”, not worth the effort for the “Average Joe”.
Letter Grade: B (I really, really liked the Epilogue)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Rob Zombie recommended Dracula (1958) in Movies (curated)
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Baby Doll in Books
Sep 24, 2020
When I read the description of this book, I was ready to enjoy the long and thrilling escape, with lots of twists along the way, but to my disappointment that didn’t happen. The first few chapters gave me the hope, so I carried on, and then decided to continue just to see what will happen.
This book is actually what happens after you escape your kidnapper and go back to safety. The victim who got away in this book was Lilly, during captive years she delivered a daughter Sky. Lilly has a twin sister Abby, and their mother Eve. The villain in this book is Rick – a high school teacher and a psychopath. The whole story of this book is told by Lilly, Abby, Eve, and Rick. The author made the whole plot into nicely flowing, continuous story, told by four different and unique characters.
Every character had their way of telling the story. Lilly was the sweet girl, who suffered immensely, and that tragedy follows her in everything she does, even though she is free. Abby is the rebel twin sister, who sees the whole situation in a more aggressive way, and all she wants is revenge. Eve is the mother, who struggles between their daughters and her own happiness. Rick is a sociopath/psychopath, who justifies his cruelty and doesn’t see any fault of his actions. I am really grateful when authors put into the story, what murderers and psychopaths think, I find it very interesting and amusing to read. It’s just mesmerizing, how messed up some people can be, even though they look like normal, respected citizens of the society. So there are plenty of characters to choose from, and my favourite was Abby. She knew what had to be done, and did it.
Even though the plot was not what I expected, it was still quite a page turner, because author brought in some unexpected turns and twists in this book, which left me surprised. There is quite a bit of psychological suspense in this thriller, opening up the post-traumatic state of mind and difficult adjustment into the society. Hollie Overton is an identical twin herself, and it was really lovely, the way she wrote about the connection between twins, that bond and sacrifices are truly magical to me.
The writing style of this book was easy to read and enjoyable. Even though it doesn’t have the nastiness which Lilly suffered in detail, it still contains some strong language due to Abby’s strong character. Another plus from me to this book was short chapters, which made it a quick and more suspenseful novel. I liked the way author ended this book, with yet another turn in the story, changing many lives and futures. So, even though it does not promise exciting escape, it still brings its subtle turns and twists, playing and manipulating with character’s different states of mind.
This book is actually what happens after you escape your kidnapper and go back to safety. The victim who got away in this book was Lilly, during captive years she delivered a daughter Sky. Lilly has a twin sister Abby, and their mother Eve. The villain in this book is Rick – a high school teacher and a psychopath. The whole story of this book is told by Lilly, Abby, Eve, and Rick. The author made the whole plot into nicely flowing, continuous story, told by four different and unique characters.
Every character had their way of telling the story. Lilly was the sweet girl, who suffered immensely, and that tragedy follows her in everything she does, even though she is free. Abby is the rebel twin sister, who sees the whole situation in a more aggressive way, and all she wants is revenge. Eve is the mother, who struggles between their daughters and her own happiness. Rick is a sociopath/psychopath, who justifies his cruelty and doesn’t see any fault of his actions. I am really grateful when authors put into the story, what murderers and psychopaths think, I find it very interesting and amusing to read. It’s just mesmerizing, how messed up some people can be, even though they look like normal, respected citizens of the society. So there are plenty of characters to choose from, and my favourite was Abby. She knew what had to be done, and did it.
Even though the plot was not what I expected, it was still quite a page turner, because author brought in some unexpected turns and twists in this book, which left me surprised. There is quite a bit of psychological suspense in this thriller, opening up the post-traumatic state of mind and difficult adjustment into the society. Hollie Overton is an identical twin herself, and it was really lovely, the way she wrote about the connection between twins, that bond and sacrifices are truly magical to me.
The writing style of this book was easy to read and enjoyable. Even though it doesn’t have the nastiness which Lilly suffered in detail, it still contains some strong language due to Abby’s strong character. Another plus from me to this book was short chapters, which made it a quick and more suspenseful novel. I liked the way author ended this book, with yet another turn in the story, changing many lives and futures. So, even though it does not promise exciting escape, it still brings its subtle turns and twists, playing and manipulating with character’s different states of mind.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Playing Nice in Books
Sep 17, 2020
Fast-paced thriller that plays on your emotions
Pete Riley, his wife Maddie, and young son Theo have their lives upended one day when two strangers show up on their doorstep. One claims to be Theo's biological father, Miles Lambert. He tells Pete that Theo and another baby, David--whom the Lamberts have been raising--were switched at the hospital and sent home with the unsuspecting families. Suddenly Pete and Maddie have been raising "the wrong" child for the past two years. The families form a friendship based on their shock, agreeing not to upend the children's lives. But as the Lamberts prepare to the sue hospital, questions are raised, and soon Pete and Maddie start to wonder how much they can trust Miles and his wife, Lucy. What are they hiding--and how far will they go to get Theo back?
"'I'm sorry to have to tell you that Theo isn't your son. He's mine.'"
Delaney's latest is a fast and compulsive read. Told in alternating perspectives from Maddie and Pete, with some flashes to the past, the book is stressful and makes you think. What would I do in this situation? And what a terrible situation to be in. With both boys being two-years-old, they are already comfortable in their family lives. At first, each family is determined not to switch the children back. But it soon becomes clear that Theo is progressing better than David, who requires more specialized care. Is that what's affecting Miles out-sized affection for his newfound son? His constant, unannounced appearances on Pete and Maddie's doorstep? Meanwhile, Maddie feels wracked with guilt at leaving David behind. The emotions and decisions are clearly complicated.
I myself was fascinated that Delaney brought up a "baby switch" case in Charlottesville, VA at the hospital where I was born, though far earlier. If I had known about this case, I must have forgotten; I would have been in my mid-teens and probably not caring about such things at the time. Anyway, it was intriguing to hear a local reference, and it totally pushed me down the rabbit hole of researching that case (which is completely tragic).
It's hard to truly like any of these characters, even Maddie and Pete, who are initially sympathetic. Let's not even get started on Miles, who truly plays the villain well. But I appreciated that the characters and their feelings are complicated and well-portrayed here. While much of the story is character-driven, it's also a mystery, unraveling what happened when the boys were switched, and it's quite interesting.
The plot in this one moves quickly, escalating fast. I predicted the ending, but it didn't do much to diminish my enjoyment of the book. If you're looking for a different and fast-paced thriller, which also gets you thinking about emotional family dilemmas, definitely recommend. 3.5 stars.
"'I'm sorry to have to tell you that Theo isn't your son. He's mine.'"
Delaney's latest is a fast and compulsive read. Told in alternating perspectives from Maddie and Pete, with some flashes to the past, the book is stressful and makes you think. What would I do in this situation? And what a terrible situation to be in. With both boys being two-years-old, they are already comfortable in their family lives. At first, each family is determined not to switch the children back. But it soon becomes clear that Theo is progressing better than David, who requires more specialized care. Is that what's affecting Miles out-sized affection for his newfound son? His constant, unannounced appearances on Pete and Maddie's doorstep? Meanwhile, Maddie feels wracked with guilt at leaving David behind. The emotions and decisions are clearly complicated.
I myself was fascinated that Delaney brought up a "baby switch" case in Charlottesville, VA at the hospital where I was born, though far earlier. If I had known about this case, I must have forgotten; I would have been in my mid-teens and probably not caring about such things at the time. Anyway, it was intriguing to hear a local reference, and it totally pushed me down the rabbit hole of researching that case (which is completely tragic).
It's hard to truly like any of these characters, even Maddie and Pete, who are initially sympathetic. Let's not even get started on Miles, who truly plays the villain well. But I appreciated that the characters and their feelings are complicated and well-portrayed here. While much of the story is character-driven, it's also a mystery, unraveling what happened when the boys were switched, and it's quite interesting.
The plot in this one moves quickly, escalating fast. I predicted the ending, but it didn't do much to diminish my enjoyment of the book. If you're looking for a different and fast-paced thriller, which also gets you thinking about emotional family dilemmas, definitely recommend. 3.5 stars.