Search
Search results
ClareR (5874 KP) rated Dead Animals in Books
May 26, 2024
Dead Animals by Phoebe Stuckes tells of an unnamed young woman who wakes up the morning after a party, covered in bruises. Over a period of time, she realises that she was sexually assaulted. Whilst trying to deal with the repercussions of this, we learn that she’s a zero hours waitress in an upmarket restaurant, specialising in offal - and she’s a vegetarian. She’s bullied because she doesn’t eat meat, and is tricked into eating it on a couple of occasions (they’re really unpleasant people).
She lives in a tiny flat that appears to be plagued with mould that only worsens after the attack. Whether this is real mould or a physical manifestation of her inner turmoil and distress is uncertain, but when she meets Hélène, a fellow sufferer of her attacker, she takes her up on the offer of moving in with her.
Hélène seems perfect at first, but the main character takes her unease and weird occurrences with her to the new flat. Hélène comes across as manipulative and controlling. In fact there’s a feel of the main character having no control of her own life at any point in this story - right up to the devastating end.
This was a really tense, creepy audiobook, read so well by Anna Burnett - her narration increased the feeling of unease!
A short but really hard-hitting listen.
She lives in a tiny flat that appears to be plagued with mould that only worsens after the attack. Whether this is real mould or a physical manifestation of her inner turmoil and distress is uncertain, but when she meets Hélène, a fellow sufferer of her attacker, she takes her up on the offer of moving in with her.
Hélène seems perfect at first, but the main character takes her unease and weird occurrences with her to the new flat. Hélène comes across as manipulative and controlling. In fact there’s a feel of the main character having no control of her own life at any point in this story - right up to the devastating end.
This was a really tense, creepy audiobook, read so well by Anna Burnett - her narration increased the feeling of unease!
A short but really hard-hitting listen.
Rumble of the Crumble (The Rhubarb Effect #7)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Two alphas. That couldn’t work, could it? If it could, would Leonidis be able to open up his...
MM Paranormal Romance Shifters Weird & Wacky series
Erika (17789 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Nov 25, 2017
Beauty and the Plot Holes
I know I shouldn't be looking to much in to animated movies turned in to live action, but this movie really had some obvious plot holes. I will get to a few of those in a bit. First I would like to say this was not a bad movie. I actually enjoyed it more then I thought I would have. The CGI was really good and the music/songs were done really well and really funny.
This movie played really closely to the animated movie. The beginning of the movie was one of the thing I felt was really off. I did not like the party being the back drop to him being a stuck up snob. I would have preferred him just turning the old lady away at the door and then getting cursed. I also thought all of the people turned into household objects were servants in the castle and not just party guests. Then at the end of the movie you have the household objects mingling with towns folks. I know they had to do it with how the beginning of the movie was set up, but it was really weird.
As I stated earlier I really like the CGI, I thought it fit in really well with the live actors. The Beast looked amazing, it had a very life like look to it. All of the household objects looked fantastic as well. They way they moved in the scenes, it did not feel computerized at all.
Now I know most of you have probably seen the animated movie and hopefully most of you have seen this movie. But one thing I like doing when I am watching a remake or know the story really well, I like to find the plot holes that are really funny and I will mention a few here. First is I like the fact they are in France and only say a few french words. I know its supposed to be a kids movie and most of them don't want to read subtitles, but at least give them all an accent. The only one with an accent was the candle holder. Second I would like to point out during the whole movie to and from the castle there were wolves that were ready to attack onsite. But when Belle headed back to the village to save her dad the Beast was not concerned at all about the wolves getting her. Last I would like to say that with how dangerous everything in the woods were Belle's dad left the horse behind at the castle even though he new about the wolves and how far away it was. Also there was the fact that if Belle was going to be there forever, why does she even need the horse.
Well this was a fun movie and think everyone should see it, maybe with a kid in the room so it is not weird. Until next time, enjoy the show.
This movie played really closely to the animated movie. The beginning of the movie was one of the thing I felt was really off. I did not like the party being the back drop to him being a stuck up snob. I would have preferred him just turning the old lady away at the door and then getting cursed. I also thought all of the people turned into household objects were servants in the castle and not just party guests. Then at the end of the movie you have the household objects mingling with towns folks. I know they had to do it with how the beginning of the movie was set up, but it was really weird.
As I stated earlier I really like the CGI, I thought it fit in really well with the live actors. The Beast looked amazing, it had a very life like look to it. All of the household objects looked fantastic as well. They way they moved in the scenes, it did not feel computerized at all.
Now I know most of you have probably seen the animated movie and hopefully most of you have seen this movie. But one thing I like doing when I am watching a remake or know the story really well, I like to find the plot holes that are really funny and I will mention a few here. First is I like the fact they are in France and only say a few french words. I know its supposed to be a kids movie and most of them don't want to read subtitles, but at least give them all an accent. The only one with an accent was the candle holder. Second I would like to point out during the whole movie to and from the castle there were wolves that were ready to attack onsite. But when Belle headed back to the village to save her dad the Beast was not concerned at all about the wolves getting her. Last I would like to say that with how dangerous everything in the woods were Belle's dad left the horse behind at the castle even though he new about the wolves and how far away it was. Also there was the fact that if Belle was going to be there forever, why does she even need the horse.
Well this was a fun movie and think everyone should see it, maybe with a kid in the room so it is not weird. Until next time, enjoy the show.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The In Between in Books
Feb 1, 2018
I confess that this book was not exactly what I was expecting. The novel appears to tell a typical tale of YA love, but it also spends much of its time in a paranormal, mystical world of the "In Between." It's very odd and I wasn't expecting so much talk of Heaven and Hell, despite the hint from the title.
The story follows Tara Jenkins and Justin Westcroft. Friends as children, they become close again after Tara saves Justin's life, when he nearly drowns in an accident at the public beach. Now in high school, Justin is a popular soccer star, while Tara is just a "regular gal." Tara and Justin quickly fall madly in love and become each other's world.
Part of my issue with this book is just that - Tara and Justin are in high school and the entire book centers on their "great romance" and the idea that they are made for each other, destined for all eternity. Some people pull it off, even if it's a cheesy YA series like Twilight. You find yourself rooting for Bella and Edward. Here... I don't know. Pierce's characters just aren't well-developed enough. I like Tara, but I'm not fully invested in her. I actually cared for Justin a bit more (he seemed to have more of a head on his shoulders), but I don't get to learn enough about him, or really get to know him enough as I read the novel. Instead, you are just left wondering why two young kids are so in love and so convinced, at this age, that they are meant for each other. Instead of falling for their love story, it seems like a Made for TV Special.
Once Justin actually dies (and I'm not giving anything away, the book's summary is forthright in telling you that Tara can't save Justin a second time) and he goes to the "In Between," you find him in this weird mythical, mystical land, and it's just odd. I do feel empathy for Justin as he struggles to get back to Tara, and even for Tara, as she grieves for Justin, but it often feels like two kids playing at being grown up. With the distraction of some weird mystical characters thrown in to boot.
That being said, the book managed to keep my interest. I kept reading, wanting to know what would happen to Justin and Tara. Would they kill them both? Would they be reunited? Surely it wouldn't just end with him stuck here and her still pining away? After all this?! In the end, the ending is rather "pat" and the book just sort of ends.
Come to think of it, this probably *would* make a great Lifetime movie. And I'd no doubt guiltily enjoy it with a box of chocolates.
(Note, I received a free digital copy of The In Between in return for a honest review.)
The story follows Tara Jenkins and Justin Westcroft. Friends as children, they become close again after Tara saves Justin's life, when he nearly drowns in an accident at the public beach. Now in high school, Justin is a popular soccer star, while Tara is just a "regular gal." Tara and Justin quickly fall madly in love and become each other's world.
Part of my issue with this book is just that - Tara and Justin are in high school and the entire book centers on their "great romance" and the idea that they are made for each other, destined for all eternity. Some people pull it off, even if it's a cheesy YA series like Twilight. You find yourself rooting for Bella and Edward. Here... I don't know. Pierce's characters just aren't well-developed enough. I like Tara, but I'm not fully invested in her. I actually cared for Justin a bit more (he seemed to have more of a head on his shoulders), but I don't get to learn enough about him, or really get to know him enough as I read the novel. Instead, you are just left wondering why two young kids are so in love and so convinced, at this age, that they are meant for each other. Instead of falling for their love story, it seems like a Made for TV Special.
Once Justin actually dies (and I'm not giving anything away, the book's summary is forthright in telling you that Tara can't save Justin a second time) and he goes to the "In Between," you find him in this weird mythical, mystical land, and it's just odd. I do feel empathy for Justin as he struggles to get back to Tara, and even for Tara, as she grieves for Justin, but it often feels like two kids playing at being grown up. With the distraction of some weird mystical characters thrown in to boot.
That being said, the book managed to keep my interest. I kept reading, wanting to know what would happen to Justin and Tara. Would they kill them both? Would they be reunited? Surely it wouldn't just end with him stuck here and her still pining away? After all this?! In the end, the ending is rather "pat" and the book just sort of ends.
Come to think of it, this probably *would* make a great Lifetime movie. And I'd no doubt guiltily enjoy it with a box of chocolates.
(Note, I received a free digital copy of The In Between in return for a honest review.)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
This Phoenix Failed To Rise From It's Ashes
Dark Phoenix is a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics X-Men and the Dark Phoenix Saga story arc. It was produced by 20th Century Fox and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie was written and directed by Simon Kinberg. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Sophie Turner.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
BookwormLea (3034 KP) rated Love and Monsters (2021) in Movies
Apr 17, 2021
Good take on an apocalypse. But really?
Contains spoilers, click to show
So the world's going to end with a huge comet but they save themselves with a rocket. But the rocket is made of some weird crap that lands back on earth and mutates all the bugs and lizards. Don't ask me why only those things and not actual animals because I don't know.
In a year, 95% of the worlds population has been wiped out. Those that are left have spent 7 years in bunkers, safe houses and other hidey holes. Joel is one of them. He was 16 when the world ended and now he wants to go find his ex girlfriend who lives in a different (what they call) colony. He's lonely because all his colony family have shacked up and he's the odd one out. He's also totally useless. He freezes up at the sight of the giant mutant bugs. But yes, he leaves to take a 7 day journey across mutant filled terrain, thats overgrown over 7 years.
Far fetched right? But he does it. With the help of a dog (yeah, a dog survived 7 years alone) an old man and his adopted daughter who know everything there is to know about the mutants, and at some weird point, a broken AI who just happens to have a few moments spare to comfort him. Also, sky jellies??? Mutations can't make sea animals fly...
So he gets there eventually, and finds her looking after old people. She's about to pack up and boars a yacht for a creepy youngish captain. And after some deliberation, Joel realises he's not who he says he is and he's actually a food stealer which, haha, ironically Joel kept being accused of being just that!! The captain sets this giant crab onto the biddies and sets sail to loot some other colony. But Joel looks right into that creepy crabs slightly human looking eyes and realises, he just wants to be free like any other self respecting mutant crab. So of course he frees him.
And then because his ex is a bitch who totally forgot about him and didn't really want him to go there, he goes back to his old colony to help them get to the mountain where there is a huge safe haven supposedly.
No romantic ending. He mysteriously survived 14 days on the surface, only coming close to being eaten like 5 times. And we don't even see if they make it to the mountain. Instead we hear his speech over the radio signals, encouraging people who've been safe for 7 years to risk their lives outside trying to make it to the mountains. Because if he can, anyone can.... gross.
So in summary, if they'd skipped the romance part, and maybe made it about a guy finding his parents or something, great movie. And someone give the damn dog his human back!
In a year, 95% of the worlds population has been wiped out. Those that are left have spent 7 years in bunkers, safe houses and other hidey holes. Joel is one of them. He was 16 when the world ended and now he wants to go find his ex girlfriend who lives in a different (what they call) colony. He's lonely because all his colony family have shacked up and he's the odd one out. He's also totally useless. He freezes up at the sight of the giant mutant bugs. But yes, he leaves to take a 7 day journey across mutant filled terrain, thats overgrown over 7 years.
Far fetched right? But he does it. With the help of a dog (yeah, a dog survived 7 years alone) an old man and his adopted daughter who know everything there is to know about the mutants, and at some weird point, a broken AI who just happens to have a few moments spare to comfort him. Also, sky jellies??? Mutations can't make sea animals fly...
So he gets there eventually, and finds her looking after old people. She's about to pack up and boars a yacht for a creepy youngish captain. And after some deliberation, Joel realises he's not who he says he is and he's actually a food stealer which, haha, ironically Joel kept being accused of being just that!! The captain sets this giant crab onto the biddies and sets sail to loot some other colony. But Joel looks right into that creepy crabs slightly human looking eyes and realises, he just wants to be free like any other self respecting mutant crab. So of course he frees him.
And then because his ex is a bitch who totally forgot about him and didn't really want him to go there, he goes back to his old colony to help them get to the mountain where there is a huge safe haven supposedly.
No romantic ending. He mysteriously survived 14 days on the surface, only coming close to being eaten like 5 times. And we don't even see if they make it to the mountain. Instead we hear his speech over the radio signals, encouraging people who've been safe for 7 years to risk their lives outside trying to make it to the mountains. Because if he can, anyone can.... gross.
So in summary, if they'd skipped the romance part, and maybe made it about a guy finding his parents or something, great movie. And someone give the damn dog his human back!
Gaz Coombes recommended Africa Basil by Jorge in Music (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Weird - and I couldn't look away
I have viewed some really strange films in my day. When asked, I often mention MIRRORMASK (based on a Neil Gaiman story) and mother! (the Darren Aronofsky oddity) as the strangest films I have ever seen.
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)