Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Blackbird Season in Books
Dec 24, 2017
character-driven (2 more)
well-written
compelling
Complicated character-driven mystery
It's just another day in Mount Oanoke, Pennsylvania when the birds start to fall. Hundreds of dead starlings, dropping from the sky during a baseball game. It seems like the birds started it all, but really the secrets and lies began much earlier. Nate Winters, high school teacher and baseball coach, is beloved in the town. That is, until a reporter, in town to cover the birds, catches Nate hugging a student at a local motel. Suddenly, the birds are forgotten, and the story becomes much juicier: Nate; his student, Lucia; and their supposed affair. Lucia fuels the fire by affirming the affair and suddenly Nate and his wife, Alecia, are swept up in the story. The only who believes in Nate's innocence, even a sliver, is his friend and co-worker, Bridget. As Lucia's creative writing teacher, she has unique insight into the girl's mind. But when Lucia suddenly goes missing--with Nate as the prime suspect in her disappearance--not even Bridget may be able to save Nate. But is there more to Lucia's disappearance than an affair with her teacher?
Wow, I was really impressed by this novel. It's a complicated novel that is just as much a character-driven study as it is a mystery. It's incredibly well-written, and Moretti expertly embodies the voice of each of her characters, from beleaguered Alecia, who is worn down from mothering her autistic son, Gabe; to the cast of teenager characters; to Bridget, who lost her husband to cancer a year ago. It's so well-done that often with each chapter (which skip from various points of view -- Bridget, Kate, Lucia, Nate, etc.), I found my myself veering between whom I preferred or believed, constantly second-guessing my allegiances or what happened. This is very rare for me: typically I find my "person" in a novel and stick with them, no matter what.
But here, I was confused, wondering. Was Nate really a cad, who cheated on his wife every second he got, or was he the sweet, affable teacher and baseball coach that the whole town admired and adored? And Alecia--was she more than just a weary mom, broken down by years of staying at home with her autistic son, Gabe, unable to give to anyone beyond him? Did she push Nate away, into the arms of others? Or was the truth more complicated that all of this? I have to hand it to Moretti--she was excellent at creating confusion and doubt. In addition to different perspectives, the novel shifts in time (before the birds fell, after the birds fell, before Lucia disappeared, etc.). It's a little tough to keep track of, but it also keeps you on your toes and always wondering, as you piece various parts of the puzzle together.
For me--even more than the mystery of what exactly happened with Lucia--the strength of this novel was the writing and the characters. I felt for them, even when I was frustrated with them. Moretti captures the angst and meanness of high school extremely well, portraying the cliques of a small town quite superbly. (I was reminded of WHEN WE WERE WORTHY, which I just finished.) I loved the juxtaposition of this being a small town, so the idea is that everyone knows everyone and everything, and yet there are so many secrets, so much unknown. Being a witness to Alecia and Nate's marriage is amazing-- you see firsthand how the events affect them and how they've reached this point. It's an incredibly realistic portrayal of marriage and of motherhood.
As you probably tell, I just really liked this novel. It's very well-written, with quite compelling characters. I worked out some of the plot, but it didn't stop me from reading at all. I think some of the emphasis on character development slows the story at places, but not in any detrimental way. This one will make you think, as well as intrigue you with what happened to Lucia. Quite worth the read.
Wow, I was really impressed by this novel. It's a complicated novel that is just as much a character-driven study as it is a mystery. It's incredibly well-written, and Moretti expertly embodies the voice of each of her characters, from beleaguered Alecia, who is worn down from mothering her autistic son, Gabe; to the cast of teenager characters; to Bridget, who lost her husband to cancer a year ago. It's so well-done that often with each chapter (which skip from various points of view -- Bridget, Kate, Lucia, Nate, etc.), I found my myself veering between whom I preferred or believed, constantly second-guessing my allegiances or what happened. This is very rare for me: typically I find my "person" in a novel and stick with them, no matter what.
But here, I was confused, wondering. Was Nate really a cad, who cheated on his wife every second he got, or was he the sweet, affable teacher and baseball coach that the whole town admired and adored? And Alecia--was she more than just a weary mom, broken down by years of staying at home with her autistic son, Gabe, unable to give to anyone beyond him? Did she push Nate away, into the arms of others? Or was the truth more complicated that all of this? I have to hand it to Moretti--she was excellent at creating confusion and doubt. In addition to different perspectives, the novel shifts in time (before the birds fell, after the birds fell, before Lucia disappeared, etc.). It's a little tough to keep track of, but it also keeps you on your toes and always wondering, as you piece various parts of the puzzle together.
For me--even more than the mystery of what exactly happened with Lucia--the strength of this novel was the writing and the characters. I felt for them, even when I was frustrated with them. Moretti captures the angst and meanness of high school extremely well, portraying the cliques of a small town quite superbly. (I was reminded of WHEN WE WERE WORTHY, which I just finished.) I loved the juxtaposition of this being a small town, so the idea is that everyone knows everyone and everything, and yet there are so many secrets, so much unknown. Being a witness to Alecia and Nate's marriage is amazing-- you see firsthand how the events affect them and how they've reached this point. It's an incredibly realistic portrayal of marriage and of motherhood.
As you probably tell, I just really liked this novel. It's very well-written, with quite compelling characters. I worked out some of the plot, but it didn't stop me from reading at all. I think some of the emphasis on character development slows the story at places, but not in any detrimental way. This one will make you think, as well as intrigue you with what happened to Lucia. Quite worth the read.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why 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> at the end of November).
I came across this book on Amazon when I was adding books to my wishlist, and I thought it sounded interesting. I also had quite a few credits on Audible to use, so I thought I'd use one to purchase this book. I wasn't disappointed.
The title had me intrigued. It made me want to read the blurb.
I'm not really a big fan of the cover if I'm honest although I don't know what I'd like to see on the cover. Maybe I'd put Clay on the cover as well. I'm not really sure.
I enjoyed the world building. I find it hard to believe that no one would follow the instructions left on the tapes that Hannah made, but I suppose it could happen. The world building fits with what high school was like, at least when I was a teenager.
I found the pacing to be done well. I couldn't wait to find out what was going to happen on the next tape. There were only a few times where the pacing slowed a bit, but it didn't stay slow for very long.
The plot is an interesting one. Hannah make a cassette tape for each of the thirteen people that she felt contributed to her committing suicide. Clay is trying to think of all the times he was around Hannah and wondering why he'd be on the tapes. It was interesting to find out the way certain people contributed to Hannah's depression. I also think the plot sends a great message about how we shouldn't judge anyone because we don't know what that person has gone through or is going through.
I think the characters were written fairly well. At first, I felt a bad for Hannah. However, as time went on, I felt that Hannah became too selfish, not because of her suicide, but just by what she said on the tapes. Clay came across as a nice guy (and Hannah even said he was), but I just would've liked to know more about him.
The dialogue worked for a young adult book. The characters actually sounded their age and not like an adult trying to write YA characters. The dialogue flows freely and smoothly as well. Being that this is a book about a girl's suicide, the dialogue does mention that as well as rape and another sexual situation. There is a few swear words, but the swearing is only mild.
Usually, the narrator's of audiobooks tend to annoy me, but Debra Wiseman and Joel Johnstone did an excellent job. Debra Wiseman really brings the character of Hannah alive, and Joel Johnstone does the same for Clay. I think they both portrayed emotions really well. However, I had imagined Clay to sound a bit different. Johnstone's voice sounded just a tad bit too old for Clay's age in my opinion. Other then that, Wiseman and Johnstone were superb!
Overall, Thirteen Reasons Why is a very different but interesting book. I felt that even though it deals with suicide, it does send out a positive message.
Due to the major theme and some sexual scenes, I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something realistic.
I came across this book on Amazon when I was adding books to my wishlist, and I thought it sounded interesting. I also had quite a few credits on Audible to use, so I thought I'd use one to purchase this book. I wasn't disappointed.
The title had me intrigued. It made me want to read the blurb.
I'm not really a big fan of the cover if I'm honest although I don't know what I'd like to see on the cover. Maybe I'd put Clay on the cover as well. I'm not really sure.
I enjoyed the world building. I find it hard to believe that no one would follow the instructions left on the tapes that Hannah made, but I suppose it could happen. The world building fits with what high school was like, at least when I was a teenager.
I found the pacing to be done well. I couldn't wait to find out what was going to happen on the next tape. There were only a few times where the pacing slowed a bit, but it didn't stay slow for very long.
The plot is an interesting one. Hannah make a cassette tape for each of the thirteen people that she felt contributed to her committing suicide. Clay is trying to think of all the times he was around Hannah and wondering why he'd be on the tapes. It was interesting to find out the way certain people contributed to Hannah's depression. I also think the plot sends a great message about how we shouldn't judge anyone because we don't know what that person has gone through or is going through.
I think the characters were written fairly well. At first, I felt a bad for Hannah. However, as time went on, I felt that Hannah became too selfish, not because of her suicide, but just by what she said on the tapes. Clay came across as a nice guy (and Hannah even said he was), but I just would've liked to know more about him.
The dialogue worked for a young adult book. The characters actually sounded their age and not like an adult trying to write YA characters. The dialogue flows freely and smoothly as well. Being that this is a book about a girl's suicide, the dialogue does mention that as well as rape and another sexual situation. There is a few swear words, but the swearing is only mild.
Usually, the narrator's of audiobooks tend to annoy me, but Debra Wiseman and Joel Johnstone did an excellent job. Debra Wiseman really brings the character of Hannah alive, and Joel Johnstone does the same for Clay. I think they both portrayed emotions really well. However, I had imagined Clay to sound a bit different. Johnstone's voice sounded just a tad bit too old for Clay's age in my opinion. Other then that, Wiseman and Johnstone were superb!
Overall, Thirteen Reasons Why is a very different but interesting book. I felt that even though it deals with suicide, it does send out a positive message.
Due to the major theme and some sexual scenes, I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something realistic.
Neil Hannon recommended Different Class by Pulp in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Freeheld (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Based on a true story about Detective Lauren Hester (Julianne Moore) who is dying of cancer and her life-partner Stacie Andree (Ellen Page, who “came out” herself last year), and their fight for their civil rights against the “Freeholders Committee” in Ocean City, NJ.
After more than 20 years of being on the force and highly decorated, Lauren Hester is seeking to give her pension to her domestic partner just like any straight married county employee has been able to do. The Freeholders, are a committee who governs the county, decided that Hester’s pension would not be given to Andree because they are lesbians and the fight begins. They are contacted by a gay rights activist, Steve Goldstein (Steve Carell), who with the help of Hester’s detective partner Dane Wells (Michael Shannon), try to get the Freeholders to change their opinion. Only with help from the community and police force, who are rallied by Goldstein and Wells,will anything be changed.
Right from the start the movie grabs hold of the viewer, and keeps them engrossed in their struggle to the end. Being so close to being a biography I was surprised at how well it was done and my interest was kept throughout. It is not just an account of a gay couple, more a depiction of a battle for everyone’s civil rights. Freeheld skillfully depicts the struggles of gay professionals to keep their identity a secret from society while still being successful in their field, having a fulfilling relationship and how society discriminated LGBTQ domestic partnerships which became fuel for the Marriage Equality movement.
The actors and director (Peter Sollett) keep the pace fluid and easy to follow without losing any of the important details of their lives or bogging it down with the legalities of the fight. The screenplay could easily have turned this into an exploitation just for the tear-jerking factor, but instead keep it realistic, even adding a bit of humor alleviate the dreariness the story, just like most people will do when facing the death of a loved one. I found Freeheld to be somewhat upbeat, even in the darkest scenes dealing with the misuse of the laws due to bigotry and how close to reality Moore simulates a person dying of cancer, instead turning it into another gloom and doom cancer or civil rights movie. Having been through it myself, I could fully connect with Page’s depiction how it feels to watch loved one dying of cancer and I know so many others will also.
I honestly loved Freeheld, I would suggest to anyone who prefers a matter of fact movie mixed with humor, compassion, and heartbreak that ends with you feeling like you were fully immersed in their life and closure with the finale.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/09/freeheld/
After more than 20 years of being on the force and highly decorated, Lauren Hester is seeking to give her pension to her domestic partner just like any straight married county employee has been able to do. The Freeholders, are a committee who governs the county, decided that Hester’s pension would not be given to Andree because they are lesbians and the fight begins. They are contacted by a gay rights activist, Steve Goldstein (Steve Carell), who with the help of Hester’s detective partner Dane Wells (Michael Shannon), try to get the Freeholders to change their opinion. Only with help from the community and police force, who are rallied by Goldstein and Wells,will anything be changed.
Right from the start the movie grabs hold of the viewer, and keeps them engrossed in their struggle to the end. Being so close to being a biography I was surprised at how well it was done and my interest was kept throughout. It is not just an account of a gay couple, more a depiction of a battle for everyone’s civil rights. Freeheld skillfully depicts the struggles of gay professionals to keep their identity a secret from society while still being successful in their field, having a fulfilling relationship and how society discriminated LGBTQ domestic partnerships which became fuel for the Marriage Equality movement.
The actors and director (Peter Sollett) keep the pace fluid and easy to follow without losing any of the important details of their lives or bogging it down with the legalities of the fight. The screenplay could easily have turned this into an exploitation just for the tear-jerking factor, but instead keep it realistic, even adding a bit of humor alleviate the dreariness the story, just like most people will do when facing the death of a loved one. I found Freeheld to be somewhat upbeat, even in the darkest scenes dealing with the misuse of the laws due to bigotry and how close to reality Moore simulates a person dying of cancer, instead turning it into another gloom and doom cancer or civil rights movie. Having been through it myself, I could fully connect with Page’s depiction how it feels to watch loved one dying of cancer and I know so many others will also.
I honestly loved Freeheld, I would suggest to anyone who prefers a matter of fact movie mixed with humor, compassion, and heartbreak that ends with you feeling like you were fully immersed in their life and closure with the finale.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/09/freeheld/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allied (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
There's a great film in here somewhere
Director Robert Zemeckis has some impressive film credits to his name. From cult classics like Back to the Future to last year’s nausea inducing The Walk, there hasn’t been a genre his skills haven’t graced over the last four decades.
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated The Hunting Party in Books
Jul 3, 2019
Not what it's hyped up to be
I somewhat liked the mystery aspect of the novel. That’s what got me into reading this one in the first place. However it wasn’t what I thought it would and I finished the novel only because I wanted to know who it was that did the murder and the story behind it.
The plot itself could use a little more as it’s lackluster and not interesting. If you’re looking for a murder mystery that’s a classic whodunit it’s not here. There may be slight similarities to it but it’s really more of a bunch of thirty somethings in a house and something bad happens. The events leading up to the murder are each told in a point of view of a character.
At first it may be difficult to tell which one is which. You rather forget who is who as the characters are rather bland and uninteresting. Miranda stands out the most but even she’s not that likable. She’s a resentful spiteful twit who likes to step over others and hates their successes as she’s amounted to pretty much nothing. I’ve never seen such a spoiled brat as Miranda. Then you have Katie and Emma who aren’t that interesting either. Although if I had to choose, it’ll be Katie who was somewhat interesting. Until of course, she decides to do something extremely stupid and she ends up being just as spiteful as Miranda. Goodness, I didn’t think I was watching one of those soap operas or reality shows where they have this much drama.
Then there’s Heather and Doug who aren’t a part of the group of friends but they each had their own story to tell. Well not really. Not much was revealed from them except they had horrible pasts. Okay. Details please. It’s nice to have well rounded characters but they ended up being vacant and lifeless.
The mystery element (what little of it) was there and it came and went throughout the chapters. When all is final and revealed well, it’s all right but it’s not the best either. There’s not much in the way of background information and if there was, not much is given and the characters have no substance at all. The plot comes up empty and the whole thing with Iain, was that meant to be a red herring? This entire story just didn’t amount to what I thought it would. It’s disappointing as I wanted to like the book and was hyped for it.
Don’t really recommend this one. If you really want to read it, I suggest library take out. Otherwise skip this one entirely.
The plot itself could use a little more as it’s lackluster and not interesting. If you’re looking for a murder mystery that’s a classic whodunit it’s not here. There may be slight similarities to it but it’s really more of a bunch of thirty somethings in a house and something bad happens. The events leading up to the murder are each told in a point of view of a character.
At first it may be difficult to tell which one is which. You rather forget who is who as the characters are rather bland and uninteresting. Miranda stands out the most but even she’s not that likable. She’s a resentful spiteful twit who likes to step over others and hates their successes as she’s amounted to pretty much nothing. I’ve never seen such a spoiled brat as Miranda. Then you have Katie and Emma who aren’t that interesting either. Although if I had to choose, it’ll be Katie who was somewhat interesting. Until of course, she decides to do something extremely stupid and she ends up being just as spiteful as Miranda. Goodness, I didn’t think I was watching one of those soap operas or reality shows where they have this much drama.
Then there’s Heather and Doug who aren’t a part of the group of friends but they each had their own story to tell. Well not really. Not much was revealed from them except they had horrible pasts. Okay. Details please. It’s nice to have well rounded characters but they ended up being vacant and lifeless.
The mystery element (what little of it) was there and it came and went throughout the chapters. When all is final and revealed well, it’s all right but it’s not the best either. There’s not much in the way of background information and if there was, not much is given and the characters have no substance at all. The plot comes up empty and the whole thing with Iain, was that meant to be a red herring? This entire story just didn’t amount to what I thought it would. It’s disappointing as I wanted to like the book and was hyped for it.
Don’t really recommend this one. If you really want to read it, I suggest library take out. Otherwise skip this one entirely.
JT (287 KP) rated Let Me In (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
t’s a hard thing remaking or rebooting a classic, whatever you want to call it, you have to make sure of one thing…don’t balls it up! Thankfully director Matt Reeves doesn’t do that, in fact he takes a brilliant original and puts his own spin on it.
The story of course is very much the same, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a shy and slightly reclusive young boy who is struggling to come to terms with his parents impending divorce. On top of that he is viciously bullied at school and has no one to turn to but the imaginations of his own doing and personality.
When he befriends Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is equally as shy as him a friendship blossoms between them against the backdrop of a cold and at times sinister winter. Abby is not quite what she seems deep down, that much is clear from the outset as her father (Richard Jenkins) goes out on nightly rampages to forage for the one thing that will keep her alive, blood.
Reeves does well to take the story in some new subtle directions such as the revelation that her so called father might well have started out as a mere boy himself and is purely by Abby’s side through need rather than wanting.
It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity
There are some scenes however that stay true to Let the Right One In which of course would be lost if not included, but also the addition of new ones that are very much welcomed.
The acting is exceptional from the young leading man and woman. Smit-McPhee whose run out in the apocalyptic journey The Road only showcased his acting stature, and Moretz proves that she has a great future, if not already, having made her mark.
Reeves keeps this film focused on the young pairing with Owen’s mother being reduced to a mere blur even when she stands only a few feet away, his Dad just a voice on the end of the phone. Unlike the original Let Me In is very much a horror flick for the blood thirsty millennial generation, and the gore is well used and timed to perfection. It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity.
There is no reason to compare this film with the original, despite the story and protagonists all being the same Reeves conducts his approach with originality that makes this equally brilliant.
We should all applaud Reeves for doing something that is incredibly hard in a fast changing industry that craves money from remaking or rebooting films to satisfy a new generation of film goers. He’s made a remake that was actually good!
The story of course is very much the same, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a shy and slightly reclusive young boy who is struggling to come to terms with his parents impending divorce. On top of that he is viciously bullied at school and has no one to turn to but the imaginations of his own doing and personality.
When he befriends Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is equally as shy as him a friendship blossoms between them against the backdrop of a cold and at times sinister winter. Abby is not quite what she seems deep down, that much is clear from the outset as her father (Richard Jenkins) goes out on nightly rampages to forage for the one thing that will keep her alive, blood.
Reeves does well to take the story in some new subtle directions such as the revelation that her so called father might well have started out as a mere boy himself and is purely by Abby’s side through need rather than wanting.
It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity
There are some scenes however that stay true to Let the Right One In which of course would be lost if not included, but also the addition of new ones that are very much welcomed.
The acting is exceptional from the young leading man and woman. Smit-McPhee whose run out in the apocalyptic journey The Road only showcased his acting stature, and Moretz proves that she has a great future, if not already, having made her mark.
Reeves keeps this film focused on the young pairing with Owen’s mother being reduced to a mere blur even when she stands only a few feet away, his Dad just a voice on the end of the phone. Unlike the original Let Me In is very much a horror flick for the blood thirsty millennial generation, and the gore is well used and timed to perfection. It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity.
There is no reason to compare this film with the original, despite the story and protagonists all being the same Reeves conducts his approach with originality that makes this equally brilliant.
We should all applaud Reeves for doing something that is incredibly hard in a fast changing industry that craves money from remaking or rebooting films to satisfy a new generation of film goers. He’s made a remake that was actually good!
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Color out of Space Is a film based on a H.P. Lovecraft staring Nicholas Cage so you know it's going to be weird.
So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A meteor lands on an isolated farm and the farmer and his family have to fight off what it brought with it. If this sound familiar then that because it's been used so often it's become a common Sci-Fi trope but, all tropes have to come from somewhere and the works of Lovecraft have interwoven themselves into many modern works. I mention this because, as well as it's main premise, there are a lot of familiar scenes and concepts. You see creatures that remind you of the 'Thing' and transformations reminiscent of the original 'Quatermass Experiment' as well as creepy kids and a well but you have to remember that Color out of Space is most likely the source material and not the other way round (The Thing it's self is filled with Lovecraftian ideas even though it's based on a story by different author.)
As the films title hints, the actual creature is a color (or Colour if you're English) which is a strange concept in its self and the effects it has on the world around it only unfold slowly but, like in the other films I've mentioned, they end in horror (and body horror).
The theme of colour, even in it's strange use here, leads to the film being pretty in parts and as the film goes on the landscape takes on eerie life of it's own very much like the Martian weed taking over London in 'War of the Worlds'.
The film it's self is odd, you keep expecting the main family to be one of those stereotypical dysfunctional family's but, every time they seem to falling apart they pull together and, even their decent into madness doesn't pull them apart. The whole thing is made even strange by Nicholas Cage who is his usual, over the top self; Throwing tantrums and monologing to people who aren't really there, although, I'm happy to say his performance is not as OTT as it was in 'Mandy' where he went full Cage (which was great for that film but Color out of space is slightly more subdued, slightly but not much.)
There is blood but most of the horror either happens off screen or is just implied and even the monsters are just there just to be seen, although they do have a point to the story.
Color out of Space is a good but slightly strange cosmic horror with Nicholas Cage being as strange as usual aided in his strangeness by Madeleine Arthur, playing his daughter, Lavinia. with the exception of Tommy Chong's Ezra the rest of the cast play it mostly straight.
So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A meteor lands on an isolated farm and the farmer and his family have to fight off what it brought with it. If this sound familiar then that because it's been used so often it's become a common Sci-Fi trope but, all tropes have to come from somewhere and the works of Lovecraft have interwoven themselves into many modern works. I mention this because, as well as it's main premise, there are a lot of familiar scenes and concepts. You see creatures that remind you of the 'Thing' and transformations reminiscent of the original 'Quatermass Experiment' as well as creepy kids and a well but you have to remember that Color out of Space is most likely the source material and not the other way round (The Thing it's self is filled with Lovecraftian ideas even though it's based on a story by different author.)
As the films title hints, the actual creature is a color (or Colour if you're English) which is a strange concept in its self and the effects it has on the world around it only unfold slowly but, like in the other films I've mentioned, they end in horror (and body horror).
The theme of colour, even in it's strange use here, leads to the film being pretty in parts and as the film goes on the landscape takes on eerie life of it's own very much like the Martian weed taking over London in 'War of the Worlds'.
The film it's self is odd, you keep expecting the main family to be one of those stereotypical dysfunctional family's but, every time they seem to falling apart they pull together and, even their decent into madness doesn't pull them apart. The whole thing is made even strange by Nicholas Cage who is his usual, over the top self; Throwing tantrums and monologing to people who aren't really there, although, I'm happy to say his performance is not as OTT as it was in 'Mandy' where he went full Cage (which was great for that film but Color out of space is slightly more subdued, slightly but not much.)
There is blood but most of the horror either happens off screen or is just implied and even the monsters are just there just to be seen, although they do have a point to the story.
Color out of Space is a good but slightly strange cosmic horror with Nicholas Cage being as strange as usual aided in his strangeness by Madeleine Arthur, playing his daughter, Lavinia. with the exception of Tommy Chong's Ezra the rest of the cast play it mostly straight.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Matrix Resurrections (2021) in Movies
Dec 31, 2021
Unnecessary
And now from the unnecessary sequels department…
And, that, pretty much sums up THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS - a title that is a confession of a studio and creator that is looking to milk a few more bucks out of a dormant franchise.
Written and Directed by Lana Wachowski (one of the creators/directors of the original Matrix trilogy), MATRIX RESURRECTIONS drops us back into the Matrix that is the same, yet different, and - intriguingly enough - brings us back to Neo and Trinity, 2 characters that died in the 3rd film.
Of course, this being Science Fiction/Fantasy, no one needs to stay dead, if another story can be built around them.
Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss are back as Neo & Trinity (this film would not have happened if they didn’t say yes to this) - and they are the best thing in this film. Their chemistry is strong and any film that can bring back Carrie-Anne Moss as a lead in a film, is okay by me.
The best newcomer in this film is Jonathan Groff as “Agent Smith” (Hugo Weaving was set to reprise his role, but had to drop out due to Theater Commitments). Groff channels his inner “King George” (the character that he was Tony Nominated for in the Stage Musical Hamilton) and it works well in this film.
As for the other “character/actors” - like the characters that Jada Pinkett-Smith (the only other returning actor from the original trilogy), Yahya Abdbul-Mateen II (playing a version of Morpheus), Thelma Hopkins, Jessica Henwick and…yes that IS Cristina Ricci - they are all pretty generic and serve as plot machinations to get us from one action set piece to another.
And, of course, there is Neil Patrick Harris as “THE ANALYST”, it’s an interesting, pivotal, role in this film and would have been better served being played by someone less “well known”. All I kept thinking as I watched this performance was - “it’s evil Neil Patrick Harris”!
As for the special effects/set pieces, they are “fine” but nothing “special”. The first Matrix film was a brilliant, groundbreaking and mind-bending piece of filmmaking that introduced cinema (for good or ill) to “bullet time” - a Special F/X that has been en vogue ever since. But this film is just a mismash of CGI that is neither brilliant nor groundbreaking and the dense mythology plot of this film is not “mind-bending”, it is more like “headache-inducing”.
Do yourself a favor and skip the Resurrection of The Matrix and, instead, check out the brilliant 1999 original - it holds up well (and is the subject of my January podcast).
Letter Grade: B- (thanks to Reeves, Moss and Groff)
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that, pretty much sums up THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS - a title that is a confession of a studio and creator that is looking to milk a few more bucks out of a dormant franchise.
Written and Directed by Lana Wachowski (one of the creators/directors of the original Matrix trilogy), MATRIX RESURRECTIONS drops us back into the Matrix that is the same, yet different, and - intriguingly enough - brings us back to Neo and Trinity, 2 characters that died in the 3rd film.
Of course, this being Science Fiction/Fantasy, no one needs to stay dead, if another story can be built around them.
Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss are back as Neo & Trinity (this film would not have happened if they didn’t say yes to this) - and they are the best thing in this film. Their chemistry is strong and any film that can bring back Carrie-Anne Moss as a lead in a film, is okay by me.
The best newcomer in this film is Jonathan Groff as “Agent Smith” (Hugo Weaving was set to reprise his role, but had to drop out due to Theater Commitments). Groff channels his inner “King George” (the character that he was Tony Nominated for in the Stage Musical Hamilton) and it works well in this film.
As for the other “character/actors” - like the characters that Jada Pinkett-Smith (the only other returning actor from the original trilogy), Yahya Abdbul-Mateen II (playing a version of Morpheus), Thelma Hopkins, Jessica Henwick and…yes that IS Cristina Ricci - they are all pretty generic and serve as plot machinations to get us from one action set piece to another.
And, of course, there is Neil Patrick Harris as “THE ANALYST”, it’s an interesting, pivotal, role in this film and would have been better served being played by someone less “well known”. All I kept thinking as I watched this performance was - “it’s evil Neil Patrick Harris”!
As for the special effects/set pieces, they are “fine” but nothing “special”. The first Matrix film was a brilliant, groundbreaking and mind-bending piece of filmmaking that introduced cinema (for good or ill) to “bullet time” - a Special F/X that has been en vogue ever since. But this film is just a mismash of CGI that is neither brilliant nor groundbreaking and the dense mythology plot of this film is not “mind-bending”, it is more like “headache-inducing”.
Do yourself a favor and skip the Resurrection of The Matrix and, instead, check out the brilliant 1999 original - it holds up well (and is the subject of my January podcast).
Letter Grade: B- (thanks to Reeves, Moss and Groff)
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)